A Closer Look at Strangulation Cases (written by a former Travis County prosecutor)
Link above is a super long read about how strangulation in DV cases are prosecuted.
Here’s a paragraph about bite marks that stood out to me. It assumes the man is the attacker/defendant and a woman is a victim.
“Likewise, I often notice bite marks to the defendant. The victim may not even remember doing so, but victims often bite their assailants in an attempt to get them to release their grip. I find that if I have a good account of how he strangled her and I understand the positions of the defendant and the victim, the bite mark is usually consistent with how her head would contact his body. A bite mark can be on a defendant’s forearm or bicep, usually when the strangulation is committed with an arm or his hands, and I’ve seen bites to the defendant’s upper chest and shoulder, most often when the defendant is strangling her from behind with his arm. It is important to have a good description of how the strangulation played out so that the jury can see and understand why that bite mark is consistent with the victim’s account. Rather than considering these injuries on the defendant as a weakness to the State’s case, consider arguing to the jury the fear and panic the victim felt during the assault that made her react in such a primal way.”
Why is Randi Trew the one with a bite mark on her forearm when this prosecutor says that bite marks are often seen on a defendant?