I do not like to use “junk” regarding flawed forensics. Let’s say that “invalidated” forensics is more professional and is easier on the reader. Nevertheless, semantics will not cure State criminal courts from fumbling badly when inmates appeal the misleading and down right incorrect opinions experts bring into trials resulting in their convictions.
Ed Imwrinkelried (Renowned law prof on Science and Law) lays it all out in this open access paper: He does have some good things to say about California and Texas statutes on “junk science.”
REVISING STATE POST-CONVICTION RELIEF STATUTES TO
COVER CONVICTIONS RESTING ON SUBSEQUENTLY
INVALIDATED EXPERT TESTIMONY
