New Jersey Superior Court refuses to overturn conviction that involved bitemark testimony

In State v. Fortin, the court ruled that the testimony of expert Dr. Adam Freeman was permissible, denying the defendant’s argument that his testimony was based on an unreliable database of information. The database was information Dr. Freeman had collected through survey responses from a number of experts in bitemark evidence. “The survey requested information on the victim, the number of bite marks, the type of crime, whether the case went to trial and where the bite marks were located. The survey also requested information on a suspect, including age and gender. Dr. Freeman also asked for the primary investigator in a criminal case to fill out the survey.”

State v. Fortin, No. A-1163-10T1, 2015 WL 6132920 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Oct. 20, 2015).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s