Junk science drives wrongful convictions. That’s not justice. | Opinion
Caroline MolloyAnyone who has watched an episode of “Law & Order” knows that prosecutors often rely on forensic experts dressed in white lab coats. They tell juries about microscopic hair comparisons, bitemark analysis, bloodstain patterns and other science-y stuff that’s supposedly conclusive proof of guilt.
Except, too often, it’s not.
Much of this so-called evidence is little more than the unsubstantiated opinion of someone with a stake in the outcome.
Yes, DNA is reliable (if collected properly). Too often, however, junk science is dressed up as factual evidence for jurors who don’t know any better. In real life, courts accept phony forensics, often with troubling consequences.
In 2023, Nick Flannery was charged with assault and child endangerment after his infant son, Arlo, suddenly collapsed in a Cincinnati suburb. In the emergency room, Arlo’s doctors found bleeding in the baby’s brain and suggested it was caused by “shaken baby syndrome.” Arlo had no bruises, no fractures, no skull injuries and no signs of neglect. His parents were the sole caregivers, with no history of abuse. There was no evidence whatsoever. It was the proverbial dog that didn’t bark.
The allegation of shaken baby syndrome nevertheless set off a chain reaction.
The Flannery children were taken away. Independent medical experts reviewing the case found that a preexisting condition, which might have originated at birth and worsened over time, likely led to Arlo’s bleeding and collapse.
Health records also showed unusual head growth and symptoms consistent with an ongoing medical condition, rather than abusive trauma. Intent on taking the case to a jury, prosecutors will argue that Arlo Flannery’s injuries were from shaken baby syndrome, despite it being a long-disputed medical theory.
If convicted, Nick Flannery could face 12 years in prison.
The Flannery case is just one of many where unproven scientific theories are being used in criminal prosecutions. Robert Roberson was just days away from a scheduled Oct. 16 execution for the alleged murder of his 2-year-old daughter through what prosecutors were convinced was shaken baby syndrome.
On Oct. 9, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals stopped Roberson’s execution because state law required convictions to be reopened if previously used forensic evidence had since been discredited or proven scientifically inaccurate. Roberson will likely get a new trial, with the lead detective planning to testify about how unreliable shaken baby syndrome evidence is.
A week. That’s how close the justice system came to an irreversible mistake.
Others, such as Josh Burns in Michigan and Andrew Roark in Texas, served years behind bars after being found guilty of shaking their kids. Their convictions were reversed by appellate courts due to the unreliable nature of the science used to convict them.
