Unsettling Settled Science: The Perils of and Rationale Behind Blind Faith in Forensic Evidence

Authors

• Jaclyn Marra, University of Miami School of Law

Document Type

Note

Abstract

Science—a seemingly compelling and infallible adjudicative element—plays a pivotal role in criminal trials, serving as a cornerstone for evidence interpretation and decision-making. However, the perceived infallibility of scientific evidence often masks its inherent limitations and vulnerabilities. Forensic methods, widely regarded as objective and precise, can suffer from a plethora of inconspicuous constraints—including flawed methodologies, human error, and biases—which undermine their reliability. The American public and legal system frequently place undue trust in forensic evidence and experts, influenced by portrayals of their certainty in media and popular culture. This phenomenon has been referred to as the “Reverse CSI Effect.” This note delves into how this misperception risks wrongful convictions and erodes the integrity of judicial outcomes. A critical examination of forensic practices and their application in court, in addition to the psychological and cultural factors leading to blind faith, is essential to bridge the gap between public perception and scientific reality, ensuring that justice is both fair and evidence based.

Recommended Citation

Jaclyn Marra, Unsettling Settled Science: The Perils of and Rationale Behind Blind Faith in Forensic Evidence, 16 U. MIA Race & Soc. Just. L. Rev. 157 (2026).
Available at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/umrsjlr/vol16/iss2/6