Defense attorneys have been the leaders in challenging "junk science". Unfortunately a given scientific technique or theory is floated as the next great thing in solving crime, and police and prosecutors rush to embrace it without properly vetting it. The result has been juries relying on flawed science in wrongfully convicting innocent citizens. Shaken Baby Syndrome is just one of many theories which fail to withstand scrutiny. In recent years, after aggressive challenges by criminal defense attorneys, many of these junk sciences have been discredited.
In the trial of Oklahoma City Bomber Timothy McVeigh, the federal court excluded handwriting comparison, finding it lacking any scientific basis. Bullet lead comparison has also been shown to be without a reliable scientific basis. Microscopic hair comparison is also under attack as lacking scientific basis as it is virtually entirely subjective. Even the premise of fingerprint comparison, no 2 people have the same fingerprint, is flawed as there has never been a scientific study establishing no 2 people do not share identical partial prints.
Over the years of successful and aggressive defense of our clients, we have successfully attacked prosecution "experts" in a numerous scientific fields, including, but not limited to, computer forensics, shaken baby syndrome, forensic pathology, epilepsy, neurology, DNA, drug analysis, firearms and tool marks, crime scene, hair comparison, and hand writing comparison. We stay current on developing issues in forensic science while teaching the Forensic Science class at the University of Cincinnat College of Law.