PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "To work, our justice system should depend on reliable, validated evidence rather than unproven theories and junk science. Wrongful convictions rob innocent people of their freedom, drain millions in taxpayer dollars through protracted litigation and unnecessary incarceration, and force the government to pay for the substantial settlements required to redress when those convictions are overturned. The Kentucky Innocence Project reports that junk science contributed to 52% of wrongful convictions in the cases they have reviewed, and that false forensic evidence was determined to be a contributing factor to 24% of all wrongful convictions nationally. But the most significant impact of using phony forensics is probably on public confidence in our courts."
----------------------------------------------------------
COMMENTARY: "Safavian: Junk science drives wrongful convictions. That’s not justice," by Van Jones and David Safavian, published by The Spokesman-Review on July 18, 2026. (USA Today); (Van Jones is an attorney, criminal justice advocate and TV personality. David Safavian is an attorney and a conservative activist.")
GIST: "Anyone 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 pre-existing 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.
To work, our justice system should depend on reliable, validated evidence rather than unproven theories and junk science.
Wrongful convictions rob innocent people of their freedom, drain millions in taxpayer dollars through protracted litigation and unnecessary incarceration, and force the government to pay for the substantial settlements required to redress when those convictions are overturned.
The Kentucky Innocence Project reports that junk science contributed to 52% of wrongful convictions in the cases they have reviewed, and that false forensic evidence was determined to be a contributing factor to 24% of all wrongful convictions nationally.
But the most significant impact of using phony forensics is probably on public confidence in our courts.
For our system of justice to work, state courts must follow the lead of federal courts by adopting the standards outlined in Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which require forensic testimony to be based on “reliable scientific principles and methods.” This rule empowers judges to filter out flawed evidence before it taints the jury.
Unfortunately, vigorous validation happens infrequently in state courts. That’s why it is more important than ever for states to adopt evidence-based standards to ensure that only credible and vetted information is given to juries.
Our Founding Fathers wanted to make sure courts were fair to every defendant. It is why we have jury trials in the first place. But the system only works when jurors are presented with trusted information rooted in sound science.
In “Law & Order,” the right person is usually found guilty. In real life, that’s not always the case. If we are to have true justice, judges must be empowered to set a high bar to screen out junk science and protect the innocent.
If states want to ensure they get it right, they should adopt the approach set out in Federal Rule of Evidence 702."
GIST: "Anyone 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 pre-existing 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.
To work, our justice system should depend on reliable, validated evidence rather than unproven theories and junk science.
Wrongful convictions rob innocent people of their freedom, drain millions in taxpayer dollars through protracted litigation and unnecessary incarceration, and force the government to pay for the substantial settlements required to redress when those convictions are overturned.
The Kentucky Innocence Project reports that junk science contributed to 52% of wrongful convictions in the cases they have reviewed, and that false forensic evidence was determined to be a contributing factor to 24% of all wrongful convictions nationally.
But the most significant impact of using phony forensics is probably on public confidence in our courts.
For our system of justice to work, state courts must follow the lead of federal courts by adopting the standards outlined in Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which require forensic testimony to be based on “reliable scientific principles and methods.” This rule empowers judges to filter out flawed evidence before it taints the jury.
Unfortunately, vigorous validation happens infrequently in state courts. That’s why it is more important than ever for states to adopt evidence-based standards to ensure that only credible and vetted information is given to juries.
Our Founding Fathers wanted to make sure courts were fair to every defendant. It is why we have jury trials in the first place. But the system only works when jurors are presented with trusted information rooted in sound science.
In “Law & Order,” the right person is usually found guilty. In real life, that’s not always the case. If we are to have true justice, judges must be empowered to set a high bar to screen out junk science and protect the innocent.
If states want to ensure they get it right, they should adopt the approach set out in Federal Rule of Evidence 702."
The entire story can be read at:
https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2026/jul/18/van-jones-and-david-safavian-junk-science-drives-w/
https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2026/jul/18/van-jones-and-david-safavian-junk-science-drives-w/
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog. FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."Lawyer Radha Natarajan: Executive Director: New England Innocence Project; FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true;
