zlacker

Reminds me of the case of when a man was wrongfully convicted by expert testimony placing them at the scene by hair microscopy. He spent 30 years in prison:

> In Tribble’s case, the FBI agent testified at trial that the hair from the stocking matched Tribble’s “in all microscopic characteristics.”

> In closing arguments, federal prosecutor David Stanley went further: “There is one chance, perhaps for all we know, in 10 million that it could [be] someone else’s hair.”

It was dog hair.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/dc-judge-exonerat...

>>ajdude+(OP)
> “There is one chance, perhaps for all we know, in 10 million that it could [be] someone else’s hair.”

This has to be wildly illegal. "perhaps for all we know", followed by a concrete number.