Police officers and other investigators seek to gather evidence of criminal activity. If they collect enough proof, they can refer the case to the local prosecutor, who can begin developing criminal charges. There are many different types of evidence that the state can use to prove that an individual broke the law. Financial records, witness testimony and chemical evidence are some of the most common types of evidence used to prove criminal allegations against defendants.
In some cases, the state may actually try to build a case using unreliable evidence or an unscientific analytical process. In such cases, a defense strategy may involve highlighting the prosecution’s reliance on junk science.
What constitutes junk science?
Scientific evidence should hold up under scrutiny. A scientific analysis should be easily duplicated by others with the same equipment and information. Some ways of processing evidence may appear scientific at first but do not actually hold up under scrutiny. People refer to these practices as junk science.
911 call analysis, for example, seeks to prove that someone lied or didn’t demonstrate appropriate emotions when reporting a crime or a crime scene to local authorities. However, differences in speech patterns and personal psychological history can influence how people handle traumatic experiences and communicate about them. Although 911 call analysis has played a role in many high-profile criminal cases, it is now considered an unreliable form of evidence. The same is true of blood spatter evidence and of polygraph or lie detector test results. The scientific research backing these kinds of evidence does not hold up under scrutiny in court.
How people challenge junk science
Defendants facing criminal allegations backed by questionable evidence may have several options when responding. Frequently, partnering with an attorney who has experience reviewing and analyzing evidence can be helpful.
Bringing in expert witnesses who can show that the state built a case on questionable evidence could also be helpful. Defendants sometimes give up too early when facing criminal charges because they assume that exonerating themselves could be very difficult given the state’s case. They don’t realize that not all evidence carries the same authority.
Those facing charges backed by junk science may be in a position to eliminate certain evidence or develop an alternative narrative during a criminal trial. Reviewing the state’s case with a skilled legal team can be the first step toward a viable criminal defense strategy.