When forensic science isn't so scientific (Rebroadcast)

WAMU 88.5 | By Haili Blassingame

Published October 23, 2023 at 3:13 PM EDT

A person voting stamps the fingerprint at a polling station in Bucaramanga, Colombia, during the presidential runoff election on June 19, 2022. - Colombians vote for a new president in an election filled with uncertainty, as former guerrilla Gustavo Petro and millionaire businessman Rodolfo Hernandez vie for power in a country saddled with widespread poverty, violence and other woes. (Photo by Raul ARBOLEDA / AFP) (Photo by RAUL ARBOLEDA/AFP via Getty Images)

When you think of forensic science, perhaps you imagine a scene from “CSI” or “Law & Order.”

But in real life, forensic science is much more complicated. According to reports from the U.S. Department of Justice and The Innocence Project, forensic science has contributed to anywhere between 39 percent and 46 percent of wrongful convictions.

All forensic science techniques aren’t created equally. For instance, in 2009, theNational Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicinefound that bite-mark analysis wasn’t supported by sufficient scientific data. Yet, bite marks are still legally accepted as evidence in court.

If some forensic science isn’t actually scientific, why do we still rely on it? And what does this mean for people wrongly convicted based on these methods?

We speak to the director of strategic litigation for The Innocence Project, Chris Fabricant about his book, “Junk Science and the American Criminal Justice System.”