PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Mr. Jones and Mr. Safavian note that “[i]n ‘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.” They argue this would let judges screen out unreliable forensic testimony before it reaches jurors and frame the reform as essential to preserving public confidence in the justice system."
------------------------------------------
PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "Citing Kentucky Innocence Project data finding that junk science contributed to a majority of the wrongful convictions it has reviewed, and to roughly a quarter of wrongful convictions nationally, the authors call on state courts to adopt standards mirroring Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which requires forensic testimony to rest on reliable scientific principles and methods."
-----------------------------------------
STORY: "Article of Interest: Conservative and Liberal Authors Highlight Junk Science’s Role in Wrongful Convictions," by Hayley Bedard, published by The Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC) on July 27, 2026.
GIST: "In a July 17, 2026, op-ed, former Barack Obama advisor Van Jones and former George W. Bush appointee David Safavian jointly argue that courts continue to accept discredited forensic techniques as reliable evidence, contributing to wrongful convictions across the country.
The authors contrast the confident forensic experts seen on television crime dramas with real-world courtrooms where they say, “phony forensics” methods—microscopic hair comparison, bite mark analysis, and blood-stain pattern interpretation — are too often presented to juries as “so-called evidence.”
“To work, our justice system should depend on reliable, validated evidence rather than unproven theories and junk science. Wrongful convictions rob innocent people of 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 op-ed highlights the case of Nick Flannery, an Ohio father charged with assault and child endangerment after his infant son was hospitalized with brain bleeding.
Medical experts who later reviewed Mr. Flannery’s case pointed to a preexisting condition rather than abuse, yet prosecutors intend to proceed to trial relying on a Shaken Baby Syndrome diagnosis, a theory the authors consider “long-disputed.”
The authors also point to the case of Robert Roberson, a Texas death row prisoner who was convicted and sentenced to death for the death of his young daughter based on Shaken Baby Syndrome evidence.
Mr. Roberson’s execution was most recently halted in 2025 by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals under Article 11.073, the state’s law that allows convictions to be reconsidered when underlying forensic evidence is outdated or scientifically discredited.
Mr. Jones and Mr. Safavian note that the lead detective in Mr. Roberson’s case is expected to testify about the unreliability of the evidence if Mr. Roberson receives a new trial.
They also note that, because of the junk science in Mr. Roberson’s case, he came within a week of execution and “[t]hat’s how close the justice system came to an irreversible mistake.”
The authors also reference Josh Burns (MI) and Andrew Roark (TX) as men whose convictions in similar cases were later overturned on appeals.
Citing Kentucky Innocence Project data finding that junk science contributed to a majority of the wrongful convictions it has reviewed, and to roughly a quarter of wrongful convictions nationally, the authors call on state courts to adopt standards mirroring Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which requires forensic testimony to rest on reliable scientific principles and methods.
Mr. Jones and Mr. Safavian note that “[i]n ‘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.”
They argue this would let judges screen out unreliable forensic testimony before it reaches jurors and frame the reform as essential to preserving public confidence in the justice system."
The entire story can be read at:
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/article-of-interest-conservative-and-liberal-authors-highlight-junk-sciences-role-in-wrongful-convictions
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;
“To work, our justice system should depend on reliable, validated evidence rather than unproven theories and junk science. Wrongful convictions rob innocent people of 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 op-ed highlights the case of Nick Flannery, an Ohio father charged with assault and child endangerment after his infant son was hospitalized with brain bleeding.
Medical experts who later reviewed Mr. Flannery’s case pointed to a preexisting condition rather than abuse, yet prosecutors intend to proceed to trial relying on a Shaken Baby Syndrome diagnosis, a theory the authors consider “long-disputed.”
The authors also point to the case of Robert Roberson, a Texas death row prisoner who was convicted and sentenced to death for the death of his young daughter based on Shaken Baby Syndrome evidence.
Mr. Roberson’s execution was most recently halted in 2025 by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals under Article 11.073, the state’s law that allows convictions to be reconsidered when underlying forensic evidence is outdated or scientifically discredited.
Mr. Jones and Mr. Safavian note that the lead detective in Mr. Roberson’s case is expected to testify about the unreliability of the evidence if Mr. Roberson receives a new trial.
They also note that, because of the junk science in Mr. Roberson’s case, he came within a week of execution and “[t]hat’s how close the justice system came to an irreversible mistake.”
The authors also reference Josh Burns (MI) and Andrew Roark (TX) as men whose convictions in similar cases were later overturned on appeals.
Citing Kentucky Innocence Project data finding that junk science contributed to a majority of the wrongful convictions it has reviewed, and to roughly a quarter of wrongful convictions nationally, the authors call on state courts to adopt standards mirroring Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which requires forensic testimony to rest on reliable scientific principles and methods.
Mr. Jones and Mr. Safavian note that “[i]n ‘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.”
They argue this would let judges screen out unreliable forensic testimony before it reaches jurors and frame the reform as essential to preserving public confidence in the justice system."
The entire story can be read at:
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/article-of-interest-conservative-and-liberal-authors-highlight-junk-sciences-role-in-wrongful-convictions
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;
