Introduction
Forensic evidence can play a powerful role in criminal investigations. However, not all forms of forensic analysis are equally reliable. One controversial area is bite mark evidence, where dental impressions are compared with marks found on a victim or an object at a crime scene.
In the past, bite mark analysis was sometimes presented as strong identification evidence. More recently, courts and forensic experts have treated it with greater caution, particularly where it is used to suggest that a specific person caused a mark.
This guide explains what bite mark evidence is, why it is controversial, how courts may assess it and how the defence may challenge it in a criminal case.
What Is Bite Mark Evidence?
Bite mark evidence may arise where investigators believe a mark on a person’s skin, clothing, or an object could have been caused by human teeth.
Specialists in forensic dentistry may analyse these marks by comparing them with dental impressions taken from a suspect.
This process may involve:
- Photographing the suspected bite mark
- Creating dental impressions of a suspect’s teeth
- Comparing the shape and spacing of teeth
- Analysing patterns such as missing or damaged teeth
Historically, some bite mark evidence was treated as if dental patterns could identify a person in a similar way to fingerprints. That approach is now treated with significant caution.
How Bite Mark Analysis Is Used in Criminal Investigations
Bite mark evidence may be considered in cases involving alleged violence, physical contact, or defensive injuries.
Examples include:
- Assaults
- Sexual offences
- Murder investigations
- Cases involving defensive injuries
Marks may appear on:
- The victim’s skin
- The suspect
- Objects at the scene of a crime
A forensic odontologist may consider whether a mark is a possible or probable bite mark and whether a suspect can be included or excluded as a possible source.
However, the process is often highly subjective and dependent on expert interpretation.

Why Bite Mark Evidence Is Controversial
Bite mark evidence has become controversial because of concerns about reliability, interpretation and overstatement.
Several key issues have been raised.
Distortion of Skin
Human skin is not a stable surface. It can stretch, bruise, swell and change over time.
Factors that affect bite mark appearance include:
- Body location
- Skin thickness
- Swelling and bruising
- Healing over time
As a result, the same individual could potentially leave very different impressions on different victims.
Lack of Scientific Validation
A major concern is whether bite mark evidence can reliably identify one individual as the source of a mark.
Studies examining forensic bite mark comparisons have highlighted:
- Inconsistent expert opinions
- Lack of standardised methodology
- Absence of reliable error rates
In some cases, the evidence may be limited to whether a mark is consistent with a bite, or whether a person can be included or excluded as a possible source.
Risk of Wrongful Convictions
In several international cases, individuals have been wrongly convicted after courts relied heavily on bite mark analysis.
Subsequent DNA testing later proved that those convictions were unsafe.
These cases have contributed to growing scepticism among forensic scientists and legal practitioners regarding the probative value of bite mark evidence.
How UK Courts Assess the Reliability of Forensic Evidence
Courts in England and Wales carefully assess expert evidence presented in criminal trials.
The court must determine whether the evidence:
- Is based on recognised scientific principles
- Has a reliable methodology
- Assists the jury in determining the facts
The court may consider factors such as the expert’s qualifications, the quality of the data, the method used, whether the work has been peer reviewed and whether the opinion has been fairly stated.
The legal framework governing expert evidence can be found in the Criminal Procedure Rules, which regulate how expert witnesses present opinions in criminal proceedings.
Where bite mark evidence is used, the court may look closely at whether the expert is offering a limited and cautious opinion, or whether they are making a stronger claim than the science can support.
Facing Legal Issue?
Speak to our Serious and Complex Crimes team for confidential advice on your position and next steps.
Strictly Confidential and No Obligation

How Criminal Defence Solicitors Challenge Bite Mark Evidence
Where bite mark evidence forms part of the prosecution case, the defence should examine it carefully.
Potential defence strategies may include:
Challenging the Expert Methodology
The defence may question whether the expert used a reliable and accepted method.
Highlighting Scientific Uncertainty
The defence may challenge any suggestion that bite mark evidence can identify a person with certainty.
If the science only supports a limited conclusion, the jury should understand that limitation clearly.
Presenting Alternative Expert Evidence
In some cases, the defence may instruct an independent forensic odontologist or other expert to review the prosecution evidence.
These experts may challenge:
- The accuracy of the comparison
- The quality of photographs or impressions
- The assumptions made by the prosecution expert.
Cross-Examining the Prosecution Expert
During trial, defence advocates may test the expert’s conclusions by exploring:
- Limitations in the analysis
- Potential bias
- Alternative explanations for the mark.
This can affect how much weight the court or jury gives to the evidence.
What To Do If Forensic Evidence Is Being Used Against You
If forensic evidence is part of the allegation, legal advice should be sought as early as possible.
A solicitor can:
- Review the prosecution’s forensic evidence
- Identify weaknesses in expert analysis
- Instruct independent forensic specialists
- Develop a defence strategy tailored to the case.
In cases involving bite mark analysis, careful review is particularly important because the evidence may be technical, subjective and open to challenge.
If you are facing allegations where forensic evidence may play a role, speaking to an experienced criminal defence solicitor can help you understand your legal position and the options available to you.
5 Key Takeaways
- Bite mark evidence is a form of forensic odontology.
- It may be used in criminal trials, but it must meet the rules on expert evidence.
- Bite mark comparison should not be treated as definitive proof of identity.
- Skin distortion, image quality and subjective interpretation can affect reliability.
- Defence solicitors may challenge the method, expert opinion and weight of the evidence.
Frequently Asked Questions
Yes, bite mark evidence may be presented in criminal trials as expert evidence. However, courts may carefully assess its reliability and the scientific basis behind the analysis.
Many scientists and legal experts have questioned the reliability of bite mark analysis, particularly when it is used to identify a specific suspect.
Forensic odontology is a branch of forensic science that involves analysing dental evidence, including bite marks, dental records, and tooth structure.
Bite mark evidence alone should not be treated as definitive proof of identity. It may be considered alongside other evidence, depending on the case.
Yes. Defence solicitors can challenge the reliability, method and conclusions of forensic evidence, and may instruct independent experts where appropriate.
It is controversial because skin can distort, experts may disagree and the science does not support positive identification from bite mark comparison alone.
Call us on 0333 009 6275. We are available to take your call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
You can also email us on enquiries@ashmanssolicitors.com or complete our Online Enquiry Form and we’ll be in touch soon.
Get in touch
We’ll respond within 15 minutes during office hours
Search our legal articles
Free expert guidance on criminal law, your rights, and what to expect at every stage.
Searching Legal Help Hub articles
Related insights and updates



