Yes, but as a practical matter, the accused have little credibility when challenging an entire field of forensics. Both because the obvious self-interest and because of the lack of any scientific credentials on the part of the lawyer challenging the expert.
You can't get another expert to come in and say "bite mark analysis is unreliable." But given the wide variety of individual views among experts, a single opinion by one expert condemning an entire field doesn't carry much weight. In these situations courts look for scientific consensus. The problem is, the scientific community hasn't deigned to establish a concensus as to forensics. Not because they wouldn't mostly agree that it's pseudo-science, but because they don't consider it their responsibility.
It looks like kind of an uphill battle when discrediting your opponent is based on discrediting their field rather than just them as an individual (and it's a field that courts have become used to relying on for evidence).
You can't get another expert to come in and say "bite mark analysis is unreliable." But given the wide variety of individual views among experts, a single opinion by one expert condemning an entire field doesn't carry much weight. In these situations courts look for scientific consensus. The problem is, the scientific community hasn't deigned to establish a concensus as to forensics. Not because they wouldn't mostly agree that it's pseudo-science, but because they don't consider it their responsibility.