When forensic science isn't so scientific (Rebroadcast)

When you think of forensic science, perhaps you imagine a scene from “CSI” or “Law & Order.”

But in real life, forensic science is much more complicated. According to reports from the U.S. Department of Justice and The Innocence Project, forensic science has contributed to anywhere between 39 percent and 46 percent of wrongful convictions.

All forensic science techniques aren’t created equally. For instance, in 2009, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine found that bite-mark analysis wasn’t supported by sufficient scientific data. Yet, bite marks are still legally accepted as evidence in court.

If some forensic science isn’t actually scientific, why do we still rely on it? And what does this mean for people wrongly convicted based on these methods?

We speak to the director of strategic litigation for The Innocence Project, Chris Fabricant about his book, “Junk Science and the American Criminal Justice System.”