Friday, July 19, 2024

The Supremes Embrace Technology

U.S. Supreme Court Denies Certiorari in Bite Mark Evidence Conviction Case: A Failure to Address Emerging Technologies and Science

The U.S. Supreme Court made a decision to deny certiorari in a case challenging a criminal conviction based on bite mark evidence, a practice that is not scientifically demonstrable. In Mcrory v. Alabama, a man spent 40 years behind bars due to scientific testimony that has since been recanted by the expert himself. The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case raises questions about their understanding of scientific and technological advancements.

Despite findings from the NAS Report in 2009 and the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology in 2016, indicating that bite mark analysis lacks scientific validity, the Court chose not to take action. This decision leaves the fate of potentially wrongly imprisoned individuals in limbo, as they may have to wait for state legislatures to pass laws allowing for new trials based on discredited evidence.

The reluctance of the U.S. Supreme Court to address emerging technologies and scientific advancements is concerning. Justices have made cringe-worthy statements showcasing their lack of understanding of technology, which could have serious implications for legal decisions involving complex scientific issues.

Moving forward, there is a call for the Supreme Court to undergo annual training on technology to ensure competency in areas relevant to today’s society. The dismissal of Chevron deference further isolates the Court from scientific and technological expertise, highlighting the need for increased awareness and understanding in these areas.

Related Articles

Latest Articles

Most Popular