Junk Science and the American Criminal Justice System Quotes

“a five-part test to apply before “scientific” evidence can be admitted: 1) the evidence must have a hypothesis that has been (and is capable of) being tested—ipse dixit was out, in other words; 2) there must be peer-reviewed literature demonstrating the technique has been “subject to the scrutiny of the scientific community”; 3) there must be an error rate; 4) practitioners must abide by controlling standards; and 5) in a nod to Frye, acceptance in the scientific community is considered, but no longer controls.”
― M. Chris Fabricant, Junk Science and the American Criminal Justice System

“Forensic boards, like most guilds, are extremely hierarchical and largely dominated by older white men. Aspiring experts are dependent on the mentorship the guilds offer for credentials and professional development. Second-generation practitioners seek to make their contributions to the field by building on their mentors’ work—not by questioning it. The cultural norms create powerful disincentives to challenging orthodoxy or asking the guild masters tough questions.”
― M. Chris Fabricant, Junk Science and the American Criminal Justice System

“Scientifically illiterate case law like this obviates the need for rigorous research in forensics. Few traditional forensic techniques have useful applications outside of the justice system and, as a result, once courts allow a technique to be used, there is no real incentive to conduct research—or even test the abilities of putative experts. Why conduct research on a technique that has already been accepted in court, the only place it matters?”
― M. Chris Fabricant, Junk Science and the American Criminal Justice System

“Essentially, the Marx opinion created an “eyeball test” for in-court evaluation of forensic evidence, shifting the responsibility of exposing flawed expert testimony to defense attorneys—through the “crucible” of cross-examination—and relying on lay jurors to separate science from nonsense.”
― M. Chris Fabricant, Junk Science and the American Criminal Justice System

“In science, foundation-free opinions by self-proclaimed experts are rejected as ipse dixit (roughly translated, “It is so because I say so”).”
― M. Chris Fabricant, Junk Science and the American Criminal Justice System

“People v. Marx, 54 Cal. App. 3d 101 (1975), became one of the most consequential opinions in forensic science, not just forensic odontology. It began with a remarkable concession: there was “no established science of identifying persons from bite marks.” The technique had not been subjected to even the most rudimentary tenets of the scientific method. No hypotheses were tested. No laboratory experiments were conducted. No clinical research. The dentists never demonstrated their claimed ability to match teeth to bite marks. It was just an opinion.”
― M. Chris Fabricant, Junk Science and the American Criminal Justice System

“The focus of the work was on bite mark analysis, but it just as easily could have been shaken baby syndrome, arson investigation, hair microscopy, bullet lead analysis, polygraphs, voice spectrometry, handwriting, bloodstain pattern analysis—the list of discredited forensic techniques is considerable. The question becomes, Why? Why has junk science been accepted by courts, unanimously, for the past fifty years? How does a dentist like Levine become a world-renowned forensic scientist in a field with no basis in science? How many more Keith Harwards are there?”
― M. Chris Fabricant, Junk Science and the American Criminal Justice System