No. 272A14-1 ELEVEN-B JUDICIAL DISTRICT SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA *************************************** STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, ) ) Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ) v. ) From Johnston County ) Nos. 10CRS54426, 10CRS54369, JONATHAN RICHARDSON, ) 10CRS3981-82 ) Defendant-Appellant. ) *************************************** BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE INNOCENCE PROJECT, INC. AND THE WILSON CENTER FOR SCIENCE AND JUSTICE *************************************** No. 272A14-1 ELEVEN-B JUDICIAL DISTRICT SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA *************************************** STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, ) ) Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ) v. ) From Johnston County ) Nos. 10CRS54426, 10CRS54369, JONATHAN RICHARDSON, ) 10CRS3981-82 ) Defendant-Appellant. ) *************************************** BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE1 *************************************** Counsel of Record Of Counsel: M. Chris Fabricant David S. Rudolf Innocence Project, Inc. Rudolf Widenhouse 40 Worth Street, Suite 701 225 East Worthington Ave, Suite 200 New York, New York 10013 Charlotte, NC 28203 Telephone: (704) 333-9945 Brandon L. Garrett E-mail: [email protected] Wilson Center for Science and Justice North Carolina State Bar No. 8587 210 Science Drive Durham, NC 27708 Edward L. Tulin Benjamin J. Rankin One Manhattan West New York, New York 10001 Dated: March 1, 2021 1 The full roster of amici curiae are listed in the Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief. The views expressed herein reflect those of Professor Brandon L. Garrett, the Wilson Center for Science and Justice, and the Innocence Project, but not those of any academic institution to which they belong, such as Duke University. No person or entity—other than amici curiae, their members, or their counsel—directly or indirectly wrote this brief or contributed money for its preparation. Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................2 I. NORTH CAROLINA COURTS MUST EXCLUDE UNRELIABLE EXPERT TESTIMONY UNDER RULE 702 .........................................................................2 II. BITE-MARK COMPARISON TESTIMONY SHOULD BE INADMISSIBLE UNDER RULE 702 DUE TO ITS LACK OF SCIENTIFIC SUPPORT ................4 A. The Relevant Scientific Community Has Rejected Bite-Mark Comparison Testimony As Inherently Unreliable ............................................................4 B. Dr. Barbaro’s Testimony Was Unreliable ...................................................7 1. There is No Scientific Basis for Dr. Barbaro’s Identification of Injuries on the Victim as Bite Marks ...............................................7 2. There is No Scientific Basis for Dr. Barbaro’s Assumption That Dentition Is Unique ........................................................................10 3. There is No Scientific Basis for Dr. Barbaro’s Assumption That He Can Accurately Identify The Source of a Patterned Injury ............11 4. Dr. Barbaro’s Testimony Was Unreliable Because of His Lack of Expertise And Biased Approach ....................................................13 III. THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO CONDUCT THE REQUIRED ANALYSIS UNDER RULE 702 ...............................................................................................15 IV. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................19 ii Table of Authorities CASES Page(s) Commonwealth v. Kunco, 173 A.3d 817 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017) .......................................................................................... 17 Commonwealth v. Ross, No. 07-CR-2038-2004 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl. Mar. 8, 2017) ........................................................... 18 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) ................................................................................................................. 1, 3 Ex parte Chaney, 563 S.W.3d 239 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018) .................................................................................. 18 Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd., 358 N.C. 440 (2004) .................................................................................................................... 3 State v. Anderson, 350 N.C. 152 (1998) .................................................................................................................. 17 State v. Bullard, 312 N.C. 129 (1984) .................................................................................................................... 3 Starks v. City of Waukegan, 123 F. Supp. 3d 1036 (N.D. Ill. 2015) ........................................................................... 17 State v. Crowder, 285 N.C. 42, 53 (1974), vacated in part on other grounds, 428 U.S. 903 (1976) ..................... 3 State v. Green, 305 N.C. 463 (1982) .................................................................................................................. 17 State v. Goode, 341 N.C. 513 (1995) .................................................................................................................... 3 State v. Grier, 307 N.C. 628 (1983) .................................................................................................................... 4 State v. Hill, Case No. 85-CR-317 (Ohio Ct. Com. Pl. Oct. 3, 2016) ................................................. 17 State v. McGrady, 753 S. E. 2d 361 (N.C. Ct. App. 2014) ....................................................................................... 3 iii State v. Pennington, 327 N.C. 89 (1990) ...................................................................................................................... 3 State v. Peoples, 311 N.C. 515 (1984) .................................................................................................................... 4 State v. Roden, 437 P.3d 1203 (Or. Ct. App. 2019) ........................................................................................... 17 State v. Temple, 302 N.C. 1 (1981) ................................................................................................................ 16, 17 State v. Trogdon, 216 N.C. App. 15 (2011) ........................................................................................................... 16 STATUTES & RULES N.C.R. Evid. 702 .................................................................................................. 1, 2, 3, 4, 15, 16, 17, 18 2011 N. C. Sess. Law 2011-317 § 1.1...................................................................................................... 3 OTHER AUTHORITIES American Board Forensic Odontology, Standards and Guidelines for Evaluating Bitemarks § 2(a)(i) (Feb. 19, 2018) ........................................................................................................................... 13 C. Michael Bowers, Problem-Based Analysis of Bitemark Misidentifications: The Role of DNA, 159S Forensic Sci. Int’l S104, S107 (2006) .............................................................................. 11 Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Sciences Community, National Research Council, Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward (2009), https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/228091.pdf ............................. 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 15, 16 Itiel E. Dror, David Charlton & Ailsa E. Peron, Contextual Information Renders Experts Vulnerable to Making Erroneous Identifications, 74 Forensic Sci. Int’l 156 (2006) ............................................................................................... 15 Mark Page et al., Expert Interpretation of Bitemark Injuries—A Contemporary Qualitative Study, 58 J. Forensic Sci. 664, 664 (2013) ........................................................................................... 10 Mary A. Bush et al., Biomechanical Factors in Human Dermal Bitemarks in a Cadaver Model, 54 J. Forensic Sci. 167 (2009) ................................................................................................... 12 Mary A Bush et al., A Study of Multiple Bitemarks Inflicted in Human Skin by a Single Dentition Using Geometric Morphometric Analysis, 211 Forensic Sci. Int’l 1 (2011) ................................................................................................. 12 Michael J. Saks et al., Forensic Bitemark Identification: Weak Foundations, Exaggerated Claims, 3 J.L. & Biosciences 538 (2016) ............................................................................................... 12 iv President’s Council of Advisors on Science & Technology, Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods (2016), https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST/pcast_forens ic_science_report_final.pdf ......................................................................................... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Radley Balko, A Bite Mark Matching Advocacy Group Just Conducted a Study that Discredits Bite Mark Evidence, Wash. Post, Apr. 8, 2015, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the- watch/wp/2015/04/08/a-bite-mark-matching-advocacy-group-just-conducted-a-study-that- discredits-bite-mark-evidence/ .................................................................................................... 8 Raymond G. Miller et al., Uniqueness of the Dentition as Impressed in Human Skin: A