322 Forensic dentistry
of the evidence comparing a bitemark on a murder victim’s thigh with the
dental impressions taken from the defendant as to deny the defendant a
fundamentally fair trial in violation of the Sixth Amendment, even though,
at the time of the murder prosecution, the science of forensic odontology
was still in its infancy. The evidence had some probative value, and the
defense cross-examined the state’s witnesses and presented witnesses that
testified that he could not have made the bitemark. Nevertheless, the jury
convicted Milone.^18
The Milone case is noteworthy for the large number of dental experts
involved, the extreme range of opinions by those experts resulting in a
so-called battle of experts, and the confusion added by the confession of
another convicted killer.
14.1.3.3 Greg Wilhoit, 1987
In 1987 Greg Wilhoit was accused of the murder of his ex-wife. A bitemark
was the key piece of physical evidence at his trial. Drs. R.T. Glass and R.K.
Montgomery testified that Mr. Wilhoit’s teeth matched the bitemark, and in
addition, bacteria from the bitemark were specifically unique to Mr. Wilhoit
and rarely found in the general population. At Wilhoit’s trial, no dental expert
was called by the defense even though Dr. Thomas Krauss, a board-certified
forensic odontologist, had been hired by the Wilhoit family. Dr. Krauss
refuted both the bacterial evidence and the matching of the teeth of Wilhoit
to the bitemark. The defense decided not to use Dr. Krauss at the trial, relying
only on cross-examination of the prosecution’s experts. Wilhoit was con-
victed and sentenced to death. Following his conviction Dr. Krauss worked
with the attorneys handling the appeal and sent the bitemark evidence to
eleven other board-certified forensic odontologists. All eleven odontologists
independently excluded Wilhoit as the person who inflicted the bite. All the
while Mr. Wilhoit was serving time on death row. As in all death sentence
cases, the new defense attorneys appealed the conviction in part based on
Dr. Krauss’s work. In 1991, an evidentiary hearing was granted by the court
of appeals. Both of the odontologists for the State of Oklahoma repeated their
earlier testimony linking the teeth and the bacteria found in the bitemark to
Mr. Wilhoit. The defense presented as experts Dr. Krauss and Dr. Souviron,
both of whom stated that the bitemark had not been made by Mr. Wilhoit
and the bacterial evidence was flawed, as more than 50% of the general popu-
lation would be expected to have the same types of bacteria reportedly found
on the victim’s bitemark. As a result of the lengthy hearing, Mr. Wilhoit was
granted a new trial. The state decided not to pursue the case and Mr. Wilhoit
was finally a free man after spending over five years in prison.^19 There are
many lessons to be learned from this case. Importantly, had the prosecution’s
dentists sought independent second opinions (or indeed eleven independent
second opinions) and been willing to accept the possibly that their earlier