Junk Science?

[SCPL]

The credibility of expert witness testimony and its inclusion and acceptance into courtrooms by judges is examined by Balko and Carrington throughout the book. Steven Hayne and Michael West’s “expert” testimonies helped to convict thousands, but their credibility and scientific knowledge were lacking. Even after West’s credibility was called into question, prosecutors continued to fight to maintain convictions won on West’s testimony (p. 236). What are your thoughts on that additional injustice?