Those facing major criminal charges may understandably feel anxious about the future. Although a person may know they didn’t intentionally break the law, it can be intimidating when the state seems certain of their guilt. Many people plead guilty because they assume the state’s evidence can convince a jury to convict them.
They may not even attempt to defend themselves. However, the case against them might not be as strong as it seems. Sometimes, prosecutors use unreliable evidence, known as “junk science,” to build their case. This evidence might not stand up in court when closely examined. People accused of crimes based on this weak evidence can benefit by showing the court how flimsy the prosecutor’s case really is.
What is junk science?
For research and analysis to be scientifically valid, it must hold up under scrutiny. Typically, that means peer review. Other scientists must be able to understand and replicate the process through which one party gathered or analyzed evidence.
If the evidence or analysis system used against a defendant does not meet this rigorous standard, then it may not be enough to justify the charges against an individual in criminal court. Blood spatter analysis is a perfect example.
Although police procedural television shows often depict blood spatter analysis as scientifically valid, peer-reviewed research indicates the opposite. Blood spatter analysis can potentially lead to wrongful convictions and a misinterpretation of forensic evidence.
Lie detectors or polygraph tests are also considered junk science for criminal prosecution purposes. People with certain personality disorders can potentially manipulate those testing processes, while innocent people might fail due to anxiety.
In a 911-call analysis scenario, prosecutors may try to prove that someone who called for emergency services committed the crime they reported. They do so by analyzing the tone of their voice, word choice or even the pauses in their speech. However, every person has unique speech patterns, and those patterns may shift in unpredictable ways during times of intense trauma.
Protecting the accused from flawed science
Working with a skilled legal team to look at the evidence the state plans to use in court can help defendants create a strong defense strategy. Expert witnesses and professional reviews of the evidence can help show that there might be doubts about how accurate and reliable that evidence is.
Securing legal representation can help people develop viable criminal defense strategies. Those facing charges based on junk science can potentially show that the state does not have proof beyond a reasonable doubt of their guilt.