The term “junk science” describes evidence in the form of data, research or analysis that is not backed by science or considered to be fraudulent. In other words, it’s courtroom evidence presented as hard scientific fact when the analysis itself is flawed, uncertain or even biased.
John Oliver, comedian and HBO host of “Last Week Tonight,” dedicated an entire episode of his show to the subject of faulty convictions based on analysis of evidence using junk science. In the episode, he quotes many recent studies of these evidence analysis procedures and their faults.
In the many fields of science, there’s a professional standard in testing and research that is followed throughout. This process is known as the scientific method. The scientific method states that all research and studies should begin with a question, then a hypothesis or theory is formulated with an answer to that question, and the testing is performed to prove without any doubt the answer to the original question. The goal of forensic science is to answer the question of who committed a crime.
Unfortunately, The National Research Council of the National Academies found that “many forensic sciences do not meet the standards of science.”
This means that their methods of studying evidence do not correctly follow the scientific method and any results obtained shouldn’t be used as hard evidence in a criminal case. Nevertheless, all too often they are. This evidence can include analysis of blood patterns, footprints, bullets, bite marks and even fingerprints.
Under President Obama, a Presidential Science Council was formed to examine forensic science procedures. They released their findings in September 2016 in a report entitled Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature Comparison Methods.
According to this report:
“Expert witnesses have often overstated the probative value of their evidence, going far beyond what the relevant science can justify.”
This means that not only are jurors hearing scientific evidence that they may not understand, but it’s validity is being inflated by the language used to present it.
No Such Thing as a “Reasonable Degree of Scientific Certainty”
For example, many criminal law attorneys will ask a witness if they agree to their findings having “a reasonable degree of scientific certainty.” The Presidential Science Council states that “this phrase has no generally accepted meaning in science.”
There is no “degree” of certainty in science. It is either certain or uncertain, there is no in between.
The Innocence Project and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers partner to reopen the cases of those who have been wrongfully convicted due to a jury hearing evidence based on “junk science”. These organizations were working with the National Commission on Forensic Science, which was founded to present their findings to the Department of Justice to reform criminal law, until Attorney General Jeff Sessions disbanded the council in April 2017.
Example of Junk Science Gone Wrong
At the last public meeting held by the National Committee on Forensic Science, attendees heard the testimony of Keith Harward. In 1982, someone broke into the home of a Newport News, Virginia couple, murdered the husband and raped the wife. The assailant left bite marks all over the wife’s legs. The wife could not tell police anything about the man himself other than the fact that he was wearing a sailor’s uniform.
The USS Carl Vinson was stationed at the docks in Newport News and Harward was a crew member. Bite molds were taken of all the crew members and six separate dentists matched those of Keith Harward to the marks left on the victim’s skin. Two of those experts testified at Harward’s trial, leading to his conviction.
In 2016, after spending 33 years in prison, Harward was released from prison and completely exonerated when evidence from the crime scene and rape kit was found to match that of another crew member, a violent criminal who was already deceased.
Bite mark analyses are one of the faultiest of all of the forensic sciences. It has been proven repeatedly to be completely subjective, which means that it should never be used as the sole basis for a conviction.
Keith Harward is now working with the Innocence Project and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers to spread awareness of these faulty sciences and ensure they are no longer used in the practice of criminal law.
Texas’ Junk Science Law
In 2013, Texas became the first state to implement a new “junk science” law, which limits the types of forensic evidence analyses that can be presented, how experts can present it, and allows inmates who were convicted using these types of evidence to retry their cases if there are faults with the evidentiary analysis used in their original trial. This groundbreaking new law will not only benefit the people of Texas, but it will set a precedent for the entire American criminal justice system.
Such laws that challenge junk science not only helps keep innocent people from being wrongfully convicted, but also keeps the true criminals off the streets. For every person wrongfully convicted of a crime, the criminal who actually committed the crime is still walking free.
If we can put a stop to these wrongful convictions, more violent criminals will be apprehended and convicted, and that makes this country a safer place for all of us.