Police departments and state prosecutors work jointly to ensure that any particular criminal case is solid. Investigators locate and catalog evidence. Prosecutors then analyze and present the evidence during criminal proceedings.
People accused of breaking the law have the right to defend themselves in court. However, it is natural for criminal defendants to feel nervous when the state appears to have a relatively authoritative case. Seemingly scientific evidence can leave defendants anxious about the possibility of a criminal conviction despite their insistence that they did not commit a crime.
In some cases, the evidence that a prosecutor intends to present in court is actually junk science, which means that a defense attorney could potentially counter it with an appropriate strategy.
What is junk science?
The scientific method focuses on rigorous inquiry and the ability to produce repeatable results. Junk science often has a basis in one study or limited research. It relies on assumptions and inaccurate information. Results may not be repeatable in another environment.
There are multiple forms of junk science that prosecutors might try to use during criminal proceedings. Blood spatter analysis, often dramatized as highly scientific in procedural crime television shows, is dubious at best.
911 call analysis can sometimes help prosecutors convince juries that individuals lied during 911 calls or showed telltale signs of guilt on the phone. In reality, every person has unique vocal patterns and emotional reactions, making 911 call analysis highly questionable.
Even lie detector tests are less than scientific. Anxious people can produce false positive results, while people with major mental health disorders, such as sociopathy, can lie without any trace of guilt.
How do lawyers fight junk science?
The right of discovery allows the defense team to review the state’s case in advance. When it becomes clear that the prosecutor has integrated junk science into their case, a defense attorney can gather documentation to present to the courts to highlight how modern scientific professionals do not embrace those particular systems.
Hiring an expert witness can also be an option. Expert witnesses are often capable of breaking down complex ideas and making them accessible to jurors. Their insight into the state’s case could help convince jurors that the so-called evidence is not proof that a crime occurred.
Reviewing the state’s evidence with a skilled legal team before deciding how to respond to pending charges is usually the best option for criminal defendants. Even cases backed with allegedly scientific evidence may allow for relatively straightforward criminal defense strategies.