Dedicated Texas Criminal Defender

Expert witnesses can help debunk junk science used in court

On Behalf of | Apr 29, 2022 | Criminal defense

If you were to take your information from movies and prime time television, you would probably assume that cutting-edge forensic science solves every major criminal case. In reality, forensic science is not nearly as dramatic or reliable as the media would make it seem.

The analysis of evidence is often quite interpretive. When comparing bite marks on a person’s body to the dental records of a defendant or attempting the analysis of blood spatter at a crime scene, there are countless details that can influence what an expert thinks actually happened.

As someone accused of a crime, you may need to make use of your right to bring in expert witnesses to counter the questionable claims and junk science used by the prosecution.

The experts that work for prosecutors can get things wrong

The professionals working in forensic laboratories employed by the state and outside experts used to analyze evidence aren’t always as reliable as prosecutors would like the public to think. These professionals can let personal bias or gaps in their education influence the accuracy of their analysis.

They might even jump to conclusions because they know that it is what their client, the state, wants in this case. Confirmation bias or only looking for evidence that supports the conclusion someone wants to reach is a known issue in the scientific community.

The only way to counter the improper analysis of evidence or expert testimony may be to bring in your own independent experts to present a different explanation.

You just need to create a reasonable doubt

When the prosecution’s case rests on one professional’s interpretation of evidence, you could bring in your own expert to provide one or several alternate explanations. You don’t have to conclusively prove that one specific situation absolutely occurred. You only need to create enough of a reasonable doubt that the claims by the prosecutor are no longer black-and-white for the judge and jury.

Rather than choosing to plead guilty when you think that the state has evidence that seems compelling, it may be better to look into ways that you can challenge or undermine the perceived accuracy of that evidence. Exploring all of the ways to create a reasonable doubt can help you defend yourself against claims that you broke the law.