Junk Science

Ally, Alyssa, Rebecca, and Cassidy

What is Junk Science?
“untested or unproven theories when presented as scientific fact”
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/junk_science

As seen in the reading…

● Conclusions were not based on the effects the Bendectin had on humans
● Relied on indirect evidence such as animal tests, chemicals in the drug, and other cases where birth
defects were seen
 Other Examples
Other examples of junk science include “bite mark comparison” and aspects of hair comparison.

● According to an article from The Marshall Project, “to treat a bite mark like a fingerprint is misleading at
best.” In the wrongful conviction case of Levon Brooks, a forensic dentist said “it could be no one but
Brooks who bit this girl’s arm” when in fact the marks in question were the result of crawfish and insects.
● A 2015 report from the FBI, Innocence Project and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
found that testimony from FBI experts on microscopic hair analysis contained errors in at least 90% of
cases. Twenty six out of twenty eight FBI employees provided either testimony or lab reports that
included erroneous statements. Says Peter Neufeld, co-founder of the Innocence Project, “[FBI analysts
committed] widespread, systematic error, grossly exaggerating the significance of their data under oath
with the consequence of unfairly bolstering the prosecution’s case.”

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-testimony-on-microscopic-hair-analysis-contained-errors-in-at-least-90-percent-of-cases
-in-ongoing-review https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/06/08/could-a-bite-mark-catch-a-killer?ref=collections
Reliability Hearings
● Expert witnesses were not admissible in court under the Frye test, which states “admissible
scientific testimony must be based on principles that are “generally accepted” by the scientific
community”.
● This prevented new scientific methods, as they may not have been “generally accepted” yet.
● The Frye test was replaced by Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, that states “scientific
expert testimony must be based on sufficient facts or data and be the product of reliable principles
and methods”.
● The Daubert decision overruled the Frye test for admitting expert testimony.
How does it contribute to wrongful convictions?
● “Misapplication of forensic science is the second most common contributing factor to wrongful
convictions, found in nearly half (45%) of DNA exoneration cases.”
○ https://www.innocenceproject.org/causes/misapplication-forensic-science/
● It is unreliable; results are never consistent. Error rates range from 27.6 to 67.8 percent.
● There is not enough research to prove the methods to be validated. (the West Phenomena)
● Exaggerations or understating of results. (Hair test in Durham case)

All of these factors of why these “scientific tests” aren’t reliable contribute to wrongful convictions. If
these tests are believed to be true when they’re not scientifically proven, then it is very easy for
somebody to be wrongfully convicted, just like Durham, Fritz, and many others.
Reforms for Junk Science

1. Expert Admissibility
a. Is the expert qualified? Is the testimony relevant? Will the testimony be helpful?
2. Public duty to disclose all relevant information to the public, including the expert qualifications and
experience.
3. Not withholding or cherry picking evidence to support your case or issue.
4. Using relevant and recent science
 Discussion Questions
1. After reading about problems with junk science, what standards
would you suggest courts use to prevent the admission of
unreliable pseudo-scientific evidence?

2. Did the Supreme Court’s decision in Daubert adequately address

these issues?

3. What are systemic causes for courts and juries willingness to rely
on junk science? Is there a social gain for the State to recognize
evidence as a “scientific?”