Forensic evidence may deliver the “conclusive proof” necessary for a Maryland jury to overcome any reasonable doubts. Sadly, the forensic evidence presented to the jury may be far from reliable. Blood tests and bite marks could present a compelling case from the prosecutor’s perspective, but the underlying science may be lacking. Regardless, the jury could accept flawed evidence and deliver a conviction unless the defense attorney successfully challenges it.
Forensic evidence and some concerns
Forensic evidence often factors into a prosecutor’s case, intending to sway a jury to a guilty verdict. The evidence does not face a scientific review to determine its value. Perhaps a further review of forensic evidence may reveal problems, such as issues with bite marks that make definitively identifying the “biter” a particular person.
If the evidence makes its way into the courtroom and sways a jury, it may lead to a conviction. Concerns exist among criminal justice advocates about reliability issues with forensic evidence, but no strong movement has taken steps to address those worries.
Addressing issues with forensic evidence
A criminal defense approach may raise questions about forensic evidence. An expert witness could state that the evidence is far more inconclusive than the other side presumes. If the jury feels the evidence is inconclusive, the members may feel reasonable doubt.
Motions to suppress forensic evidence could prevent it from ever appearing in court. Did the police or some other professional mishandle the evidence? A judge may discard tainted evidence.
Police misconduct may lead to a successful motion to suppress evidence. Evidence obtained without a necessary warrant may be inadmissible. There are other ways the police could violate someone’s rights. Those actions could harm the prosecutor’s case immensely.