Anyone who has watched an episode of "Law & Order" knows that prosecutors often rely on forensic experts dressed in white lab coats. They tell juries about microscopic hair comparisons, bitemark analysis, bloodstain patterns and other science-y stuff that's supposedly conclusive proof of guilt.

Except, too often, it's not.

Much of this so-called evidence is little more than the unsubstantiated opinion of someone with a stake in the outcome.

Yes, DNA is reliable (if collected properly). Too often, however, junk science is dressed up as factual evidence for jurors who don’t know any better. In real life, courts accept phony forensics, often with troubling consequences.

Shaken baby syndrome and the unreliable science courts still lean on

In 2023, Nick Flannery was charged with assault and child endangerment after his infant son, Arlo, suddenly collapsed in a Cincinnati suburb. In the emergency room, Arlo’s doctors found bleeding in the baby’s brain and suggested it was caused by “shaken baby syndrome.” Arlo had no bruises, no fractures, no skull injuries and no signs of neglect. His parents were the sole caregivers, with no history of abuse. There was no evidence whatsoever. It was the proverbial dog that didn’t bark.

The........

© USA TODAY