The National JudicialCollege dives deep into explaining how overblown “feature-comparing” experts and actually ANYONE attesting to their “science” can be corralled through using rules within the Federal Rules of Evidence.
I think they must have read from all the ABFO bitemarker cases to have compiled what is contained in this lesson plan for judges.
Taking from transcripts used in actual cases, the Judicial College takes a hard stance against forensic statements such as:
“Statements suggesting or implying greater certainty are not scientifically valid and should not be permitted. In particular, courts should never permit scientifically indefensible claims such as: “zero,” “vanishingly small,” “essentially zero,” “negligible,” “minimal,” or “microscopic” error rates; “100 percent certainty” or proof “to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty;” identification “to the exclusion of all other sources;” or a chance of error so remote as to be a “practical impossibility.” ”