There are many ways for the state to justify the prosecution of an individual. Evidence ranging from witness testimony and security camera footage to financial records and fingerprints can help connect an individual to criminal activity.
Sometimes, the state builds its case on a single witness or piece of physical evidence. Occasionally, state investigators and prosecutors may reach more than they should in an attempt to justify criminal charges.
In fact, they may build their entire case on questionable forensic science. Certain types of evidence that were once considered strong proof in criminal proceedings have since turned into junk science. If a prosecutor builds their case on junk science, that can play a role in a defendant’s trial strategy.
What is junk science?
Junk science involves questionable analytical processes. Prosecutors or forensic specialists may rely on processing systems that do not have peer-reviewed credibility. For example, 911-call analysis has sometimes played a role in criminal cases.
The state points to certain verbal behaviors or tones of voice as an indicator that someone may have committed the crime they reported to authorities. Research has since shown that the drastic variations in how people communicate make such analysis unreliable at best. Similarly, blood spatter analysis is no longer considered scientifically credible. The process of trying to recreate the movement of blood can result in inaccurate and unrealistic allegations.
Even lie detector tests are no longer typically admissible as part of the state’s case in a criminal trial. Not only does anxiety create false positive results, but people with serious personality disorders can often pass lie detector tests.
How do people counter junk science?
Defendants facing charges backed by junk science likely need professional help. Not only do they need an attorney to advocate for them, but they likely need expert witnesses to help them combat the evidence at trial.
What initially seems like a strong criminal case may actually be relatively easy to fight back against with proper support. Analyzing the state’s evidence is a key element of any successful criminal defense strategy. Seeking legal guidance can help a defendant potentially avoid a conviction when taking the case to trial.
