Sunday, February 2, 2025

Reducing the use of junk science in criminal trials

 M. Chris Fabricant writes in his book Junk Science in the American Criminal Justice System:

One of the primary hurdles to reducing the use of the junk science in criminal investigations and trials lies in the standards used to determine the admissibility of forensic evidence in court.

Traditionally, U.S. courts have relied on doctrines such as the Frye Standard and the Daubert Standard to assess whether scientific evidence should be presented to juries. The Frye Standard, originating from a 1923 case, allows evidence if it has gained "general acceptance" within the relevant scientific community. However, this standard has often been too lenient, allowing pseudo-scientific practices to enter the courtroom simply because they were widely used, despite lacking rigorous scientific validation.

In response to the shortcomings of the Frye Standard, the Supreme Court established the Daubert Standard in 1993, which requires a more stringent scientific evaluation of the evidence. The Daubert ruling instructs judges to act as gatekeepers, ensuring that an expert's testimony is based on valid scientific principles, has been peer-reviewed, and has known error rates.

Despite this seemingly robust criterion, practical application varies dramatically across jurisdictions. Many judges, lacking scientific expertise, continue to struggle with distinguishing credible science from junk science. Consequently, unreliable forensic evidence continues to find its way into trials, perpetuating wrongful convictions. Beyond legal standards, institutional resistance

Beyond legal standards, institutional resistance forms another substantial barrier to addressing junk science. Law enforcement agencies and prosecutorial bodies often exhibit a profound reluctance to amend established practices. There's an inherent inertia within these institutions; changing methods, admitting past mistakes, and embracing new protocols require significant shifts in culture and mindset.

Law enforcement officials and prosecutors may fear that conceding errors or questioning forensic methodologies could undermine their credibility, lead to reopening past convictions, or even expose them to legal liabilities.

No comments:

Post a Comment