Here’ the stand-off:

Prosecutors’ existing forensic standards necessary for them to continue to to get convictions in the 5% of their caseload which actually goes to trial. Obviously, these same standards are used to get the other 95% to plead out.

vs………………………….

The use of methods that have considerable basis in better scientific fact rather than prosecutors’ success rate ( aka “stare decisis’) derived “beliefs.” Since science methodology is a foundational concept dating back to the Egyptians, Greeks and Hammurabi and our US Constitution is only about 228 years old raises a question. Is there some connection between the two? Plus, is all this PCAST argumentation only a metaphor for a much broader cultural context?

I certainly think there is a connection, but not by all means is it a “perfect match.” As exoneration litigation has revealed.

If all that is true, shouldn’t reasonable and rationale principles of both ( like the 6th Amendment ensuring  a “fair trial” and the earth is not flat) be acceptable in our US system of Criminal Justice?

Apparently not.

Read on for the disagreeable truth revealed in the media blasts from some big-wig prosecutors.