This story is free to read because readers choose to support LAist. If you find value in independent local reporting, make a donation to power our newsroom today.
When forensic science isn't so scientific (Rebroadcast)
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)
Listen
34:10
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 Medicine found 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.”
Copyright 2023 WAMU 88.5. To see more, visit WAMU 88.5. 9(MDA1OTI3MjQ5MDEyODUwMTE2MzM1YzNmZA004))
You come to LAist because you want independent reporting and trustworthy local information. Our newsroom doesn’t answer to shareholders looking to turn a profit. Instead, we answer to you and our connected community. We are free to tell the full truth, to hold power to account without fear or favor, and to follow facts wherever they lead. Our only loyalty is to our audiences and our mission: to inform, engage, and strengthen our community.
Right now, LAist has lost $1.7M in annual funding due to Congress clawing back money already approved. The support we receive from readers like you will determine how fully our newsroom can continue informing, serving, and strengthening Southern California.
If this story helped you today, please become a monthly member today to help sustain this mission. It just takes 1 minute to donate below.
Your tax-deductible donation keeps LAist independent and accessible to everyone.
Right now, LAist has lost $1.7M in annual funding due to Congress clawing back money already approved. The support we receive from readers like you will determine how fully our newsroom can continue informing, serving, and strengthening Southern California.
If this story helped you today, please become a monthly member today to help sustain this mission. It just takes 1 minute to donate below.
Your tax-deductible donation keeps LAist independent and accessible to everyone.
Senior Vice President News, Editor in Chief
