Mounting research is calling into question whether bite mark evidence used in court cases is unreliable, and that's just one of the forensic techniques being found tenuous by independent researchers, NBC News reported.
Critics say the techniques are leading to wrongful convictions even after dozens of studies have warned that common forensic science methods may be inaccurate.
"If we don't have technologies that are objective, repeatable and reliable, then we have no idea how many times we're making the wrong decision,” said Alicia Carriquiry, director of the government-funded Center for Statistics and Applications in Forensic Evidence.
Prosecutors in Paul Aaron Ross' upcoming retrial for the 2004 murder of a 26-year-old woman will rely on bite marks, which helped seal his conviction. The retrial comes after an appeals court decided Ross' lawyer wasn't given enough time to prepare, but a debate over bite marks is holding it up.