While the advent of DNA analysis has paved the way for wrongfully convicted individuals to contest their convictions, flaws in traditionally accepted forensic sciences are still being uncovered. Bitemark evidence has been consistently admitted in courts across the country and has formed the basis of numerous criminal convictions. However, research over the past decade demonstrates the serious fallibility of this questionable forensic science when it is used to conclusively "match" a person's teeth to a bitemark in human skin. This Comment outlines the flaws in bitemark identification as a science and concludes that under modem evidentiary standards, including Daubert's application of the Federal Rules of Evidence and Wisconsin's relevancy test, courts can and should refuse to admit bitemark-matching testimony in the courtroom.
