Oct 30, 2026 · 15 min
Crime-show forensics often outruns the science
Is your favorite crime show rooted in fake science?
Unreliable forensic claims can shape courtroom decisions and contribute to wrongful convictions, especially for poor people and Black and brown defendants.
- 1Hair microscopy and bite-mark comparison lack the scientific support needed for definitive courtroom claims.
- 2Blood-spatter analysis can provide value, but poorly trained examiners may exceed what the evidence supports.
- 3Fabricant calls for pretrial testing, blinded examiners, and transparent reporting of error rates and uncertainty.
Don't miss
Fabricant argues that forensic techniques should undergo FDA-like testing before they are used to make decisions about a person’s liberty.
The brief
Short Wave opens on the gap between crime-show certainty and courtroom reality, where forensic techniques can appear definitive without rigorous scientific support.
M. Chris Fabricant explains how methods developed for law-enforcement investigations can enter court through precedent, even when their reliability has not been properly tested.
Hair microscopy and bite-mark comparison receive the sharpest scrutiny: claims of matching suspects to evidence can exceed what the science supports, or lack reliable support altogether.
Blood-spatter analysis is more conditional. Fabricant says it may help when grounded in physics and fluid dynamics, but inadequately trained practitioners can overstate its conclusions.
Fabricant proposes testing forensic methods before they affect liberty, blinding examiners to biasing information, and requiring testimony to disclose error rates and uncertainty.
Weekly email
State of the Pod, every Monday
The week's most-discussed names and stories from podcasts, with the moments behind them. Free, five minutes, unsubscribe in one click.