The Santa Cruz Sentinel is reporting the disturbing trend nationwide of judges continuing to allow evidence unsupported by science.

Examples of judges continuing to allow forensic science which is not been properly validated into the court room include a case in Connecticut, where a judge allowed prosecutors to present evidence about a footprint they felt was relevant. Testimony evidently involved representations of a forensic scientist that a specific shoe belonging to a man accused of the crime left of the relevant footprint. In Chicago, a federal court judge allowed experts to describe firearm and toolmark comparisons performed on bullets collected at crime scenes. In Pennsylvania, a judge ruled that prosecutors could elicit testimony about bite marks found on the body of a murder victim.

These rulings are troubling for several reasons. In Chicago, the federal court rationalized the testimony would be subject to cross examination by the defense attorneys.  This…