When you think about a criminal conviction, you may expect strong evidence and reliable science. However, that does not always happen. Some forensic methods have been questioned because they have helped lead to wrongful convictions in Michigan and other states. Learning how these methods can fail may help you understand how science can affect a criminal case.
The risks of unreliable forensic evidence
For many years, courts accepted some forensic methods as proven science. Prosecutors used methods such as bite mark analysis, hair comparison and blood pattern analysis to support their cases.
Later studies showed that some of these methods were not as reliable as people once believed. They could produce mistakes and lead to false conclusions. The Innocence Project has found many cases where faulty forensic evidence played a role in wrongful convictions. In some cases, experts gave strong opinions about evidence that later proved wrong through DNA testing.
Examples of junk science in Michigan cases
Some disputed forensic methods have been used in Michigan criminal cases. Bite mark analysis is one example. Experts now question whether bite marks can reliably identify a person. Human skin can change, and different people may leave similar marks.
Hair comparison has also faced criticism. In the past, some Federal Bureau of Investigation examiners said hair samples matched crime scene evidence. Later reviews showed that some of those claims were not supported by science.
Other questioned methods include some gunshot residue tests, older arson methods and fingerprint claims that go beyond what science can prove.
Presumptive roadside drug tests can also create false-positive results. These tests may react to legal over-the-counter or prescription medications. Police may use these early results during an investigation. However, criminal charges usually depend on later testing by a certified laboratory.
How attorneys challenge unreliable science
If faulty forensic evidence helped lead to a conviction, an attorney may review the case and the evidence used at trial. An attorney may question whether the forensic method was reliable. They may also work with experts who can explain problems with the evidence.
In some cases, an attorney may ask the court to review the conviction. They may also request new DNA testing or other testing that was not available before. New evidence may help show that the original evidence was weak or incorrect. Attorneys may also challenge expert testimony. They may argue that an expert made claims that were stronger than the science allowed.
Steps to take after a wrongful conviction
If you believe unreliable forensic evidence affected a conviction, consider contacting a group that handles wrongful conviction cases. Organizations such as the Innocence Project have helped identify problems with forensic evidence and other trial issues.
It can be helpful to collect important records. These may include trial transcripts, lab reports and expert testimony. These documents can help show whether faulty science affected the case. Michigan law also sets deadlines for appeals and other legal actions. Speaking with an attorney may help you understand possible next steps.
Reviewing a wrongful conviction
Science continues to improve. As new research becomes available, courts may review older cases that relied on unreliable methods. If you believe faulty forensic evidence affected your conviction or that of a loved one, consider speaking with an attorney who handles these cases. They can explain your options and help you understand the process under Michigan law.