Bite mark evidence disputed yet again

Legal counsel for Danny Lee Hill presents argument during hearing

WARREN -- The bite mark evidence presented during the 1986 trial of Danny Lee Hill was again disputed by the convicted murderer's legal counsel during a hearing in the Sixth District Court of Appeals in Cincinnati.

In January 1986, Hill was convicted by a three-judge panel and later sentenced to death for his part in the Sept. 10, 1985, torture, rape and brutal attack on 12-year-old Raymond Fife, who later died from his injuries.

Hill's attorney, Sharon Hicks, argued that the "critical" bite mark evidence presented by Dr. Curtis Mertz, a forensic odontologist during Hill's 1986 trial, should be allowed to be litigated in a habeas petition due to changes in the science that make the evidence no longer credible to use during a trial. Mertz testified that the bite mark, "without a doubt" belonged to Hill.

Hicks' appeal hinges on a 2013 change made by the American Board of Forensic Odontology, a board established to enhance and revise the standards of qualifications for those who practice forensic odontology, according to its website.

The change determined that there was no scientific validation behind bite mark evidence, similar to how fingerprints or DNA can be used to find a unique match to an individual.

"It's not that the science evolved in this case, the science has been completely eliminated," Hicks said. "So if a conviction relies heavily on science that is no longer science at all, then Mr. Hill should be able to present and litigate that."

Judge Raymond M. Kethledge argued that Hicks' assessment would mean the court would have to readjudicate a case every time the standards are changed and an inmate files a habeas petition to review judicial decisions made in his or her case.

The court previously held the position that the bite mark evidence was not essential for the conviction of Hill, stating that there was enough evidence to do so without it.

Judge Jeffrey Sutton said Hill has challenged the bite mark evidence "continuously" since his conviction.

Hicks told the panel of judges those previous challenges during trial, counsel spoke to the reliability of the bite marks identified as Hill's.

During the trial, the defense called its own forensic odontologist, Dr. Lowell Levine, who testified that he could not conclude for certain to whom the bite marks found on the genitals of Fife belonged.

That was a stark contrast to the testimony of the state's expert. Mertz who testified, "It's my professional opinion, with reasonable degree of medical certainty, that Hill's teeth, as depicted by the models and the photographs that I had, made the bite on Fife's (genitals)."

But, Levine did state that the mark on Fife's genital area was most likely made by Hill.

Hicks told the court that a due process violation arose after the change made by the board and the failure of the state court to revist the conviction of Hill.

The state argued in rebuttal that the defenses case for a habeas petition hinges on this being the second time such a motion has been filed and that it should not be presented under federal law.