State authorities often have an interest in solving specific types of crimes. Violent offenses are more likely than other forms of criminal activity to draw media attention. People may criticize police departments and prosecutors based on solve and conviction rates for violent offenses.
Therefore, professionals in the criminal justice sector often feel intense pressure to identify suspects and successfully prosecute them after violent crimes occur. Unfortunately, that pressure might result in unfair outcomes. Authorities might target specific people during investigations based on questionable evidence.
Prosecutors might build a case on junk science in the hopes of the defendant pleading guilty. Those facing charges backed by unreliable evidence may need help developing a strategy that can prevent a conviction.
What is junk science?
Junk science includes various types of evidence that people may have previously found scientifically credible. However, professionals may not be able to duplicate the results obtained by investigators because the procedures used for evidence analysis may not be as reliable as the state claims.
Blood spatter analysis is an example of junk science. People can extrapolate a variety of extreme and unusual details from the patterns in the blood left at a crime scene. However, different professionals could easily reach completely different conclusions while performing a blood spatter analysis.
Similarly, 911-call analysis is no longer considered a reliable form of criminal evidence. People have different vocal patterns and personal histories that can make their reactions seem unusual or suspect to outsiders. Innocent people could look guilty if the wrong people analyze their verbal behavior during a 911 call.
Lie detector tests are also improper to use as evidence, as false positives are common. Additionally, people with certain personality disorders are likely to pass these tests with flying colors because they feel no internal emotional turmoil about lying.
Defense teams can challenge junk science. Defense lawyers may be able to bring in expert witnesses who can explain to the courts the issues with certain types of junk science. In some cases, attorneys may even be able to convince the courts to prevent the presentation of scientifically questionable evidence.
Understanding that not all evidence holds up under scrutiny could help defendants facing violent criminal charges feel confident about taking their cases to trial. Defendants facing cases based largely on junk science may be able to avoid convictions with the right assistance.