zlacker

>>YeGobl+(OP)
Powerful article. What strikes me as a layman (non-lawyer, non-law enforcement), is how prevalent these methods of forensic science have become, without any solid scientific basis backing them up - such as peer reviewed studies with quantifiable evidence. You'd think that in order for the state to take the life of a human being, you'd need to prove it using means that are more thoroughly vetted than "[one doctor] who in 1971 suggested the cause might be violent shaking" (emphasis mine).

>>GlumWo+lb
SBS is well supported by the medical literature and extensive studies: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25616019/ (an overview)

This man was not committed to death row because of one doctor. He was found guilty because multiple people in his life testified he had a history of violently shaking and screaming at a child for crying.

>>vorpal+mm
>He was found guilty because multiple people in his life testified

Source?

>>Araina+ZG
https://www.texastribune.org/2016/06/17/appeals-court-halts-...

Yes, this article is from 2016 and yes it's in Texas which has a strong law which allows throwing out bad science.

The suspect forensic claim was such a small part of the evidence against the defendent that it didn't survive appeals.

>>vorpal+8O
Texas has a really good reputation when it comes to throwing out junk science.

But it also means prosecutors often avoid scientific evidence in favor of witness testimony.

It also creates situations where no DNA test is done on evidence. On appeal the defense says “the prosecution didn’t even do dna testing!” But during the trial the defense wasn’t asking for it (and neither was prosecution) so of course it didn’t happen.