Perhaps not, according to this interesting article published by Propublica. It is part of a series of articles about cases involving blood splatter analysis, and the questions about the science have resulted in moves to try to exonerate the convicted defendants.
And speaking of forensic sciences, Jennifer Mnookin, a doyen in the forensics reform movement, has published a new article called “The Uncertain Future of Forensic Science.” She explores whether the recent critiques of certain forensic techniques, in particular often-used forms of pattern evidence such as fingerprint, tool mark, and bite mark identification, is “the beginning of a sea change, signaling the rise of a science-based, empirically grounded approach to these forms of evidence, both in the courtroom and in the crime laboratory,” or merely the application of so many Band-Aids that fail to address the underlying malady—and if it’s only the latter, what might be done to advance the cause of reform.
