Junk Science and Judicial Arrogance Are Killing Us

Unfortunately, our courts’ willingness to accept lethal junk science is not restricted to SBS. The problem is so widespread that, in recent years, Texas and six other states have passed laws allowing defendants to appeal their convictions on the basis of advancements in science to ensure no one remains in prison over faulty evidence and theories. Nevertheless, some legislators say that the law is not being properly applied in Roberson’s case.

The steadfast unwillingness to reckon with the faulty science that may send a man to his death also flies in the face of what other states have done to curb the destructive effects of junk science. Elsewhere, courts have established higher standards, holding that certain scientific evidence—such as the faulty theories of drug recognition experts—may not be used as evidence. The lack of uniform standards where science is concerned is especially galling. Roberson and others stand to potentially lose their freedoms, livelihoods, and their lives, solely due to a fluke in geography.

Despite the positive developments that have peppered the legal and literal landscape, courts continue to rely on disputed forensic techniques, which has led to thousands of defendants spending time in prison on faulty evidence. According to the Federal Rules of Evidence, expert testimony must be the “product of reliable principles and methods” to be admissible. However, for decades, courts have relied on testimony about bite-mark analysis, despite the fact that the judge who presided over the case in which its use was originally sanctioned has since conceded that the technique had not been proven to be scientifically reliable.