Many forms of scientific expertise in criminal justice proceedings have been debunked
or come under scrutiny in recent years.
Things like bite mark analysis
and blood spatter analysis used to be commonly understood as rigorous empirical analysis.
But these questionable theories often fall apart on closer inspection.
This is how science is supposed to work.
Experts observe, they hypothesize, they test,
and they revise their previous understandings of the world in academia and in scientific journals.
That's all well and good, but what happens when evolving science is brought into the courtroom?
In a courtroom, no one is well positioned to rigorously evaluate a scientific debate.
Not judges, not jurors, and not even the people calling expert witnesses.
My name's Jerusalem Dempsis.
I'm a staff writer at the Atlantic,
and this is good on paper A policy show that questions what we really know
about popular narratives Today's episode is about abusive head trauma,
but you probably know it by its older name, shaken baby Syndrome.
Babies cannot speak for themselves.
As a result,
when doctors or prosecutors accuse a parent
or caregiver of having violently and abusively shaken their baby,