Texas was considered a groundbreaker when it passed Article 11.073 of the Texas Criminal Code. Known as the junk science law, it was intended to protect people convicted on evidence that turned out to be scientifically unsupported. So far, unfortunately, the law isn’t having much effect.

New Science and Junk Science

The law is officially entitled “Procedure Related to Certain Scientific Evidence.” It’s intended to help people use newer scientific evidence, such as DNA, or to overcome discredited scientific evidence used against them.

The courts can determine whether new evidence that contradicts the original relevant evidence is available. To determine whether the presentation of new evidence is warranted, the court must decide if any of the following have changed since the original action was filed:

• The field of scientific knowledge
• A testifying expert’s knowledge
• A scientific method on which the evidence is based

If they have, a new trial could be granted.

Initially, it appeared that this law was aimed at DNA evidence. Many older convictions around the country have been overturned due to new DNA testing methods. Science that didn’t exist when people were convicted can now be used to exonerate them.

But there is junk science to be considered, as well. Unfortunately, criminal justice has long been a hotbed for questionable scientific claims. Analyses on bloodstain patterns and 911 calls were not based on rigorous application of scientific principles. Courts around the country have overturned convictions based on that now-discredited evidence.

How Is the Law Working?

In practice, it would be difficult to argue that the junk science law is providing much relief to wrongly convicted people. A recent analysis found that of the 74 appeals filed concerning junk science, 15 people had been granted new trials.

To those 15, the law has changed their life. For the remaining 59, there has been no change. More than a third of the appeals were denied without any consideration of the scientific claims underpinning them. And none of the overturned convictions were in capital cases.

Incorrect Application of the Law

There has been disagreement about how the new law should be applied. What does a defendant have to prove to the court in order to get a new trial? Some argue that the law requires a showing that the defendant was innocent. Others claim that the law merely requires a showing that the conviction was based on junk science.

The problem is that older cases are harder to try. Witnesses may not be available anymore, and evidence may have been lost. Finding the person who actually committed the crime gets harder as time passes. If someone goes to prison based on scientific evidence we now know to be wrong, shouldn’t there be some relief?

Get the Legal Help You Deserve

At Lee & Wood, our skilled criminal defense attorneys know how to present a strong defense. Call our Fort Worth lawyers today at 817-678-6771 or contact us online to get started.