How Do Texas’s Junk Science Laws Affect Trials?

In the Texas criminal justice system, scientific evidence plays a critical role in determining guilt or innocence. However, what happens when this evidence—once considered reliable—is later exposed as junk science? Texas, in a groundbreaking move, passed laws to address this very issue. These “Junk Science Laws” are transforming the way courts handle questionable scientific evidence, leading to a fairer trial process and an avenue for wrongful conviction claims.

Let’s take a deep dive into one of the most significant legal reforms in Texas’s judicial system.

What is Junk Science and Why Does It Matter?

Junk science refers to unproven, unreliable, or outdated scientific methods once presented as credible evidence in court. Examples include:

• Bite mark analysis
• Shaken baby syndrome diagnoses
• Arson investigation methods

These methods were trusted for years but have since been discredited. Unfortunately, they played a role in sending innocent people to prison, and in some cases, even to death row.

According to the Innocence Project, faulty forensic science has contributed to 45% of DNA exonerations nationwide. Texas decided to lead the charge to fix this issue, passing critical reforms to ensure scientific evidence in court is both accurate and trustworthy.

The History Behind Texas’s Junk Science Laws

The push for reform began with Michael Morton, who was wrongfully convicted in 1987 for his wife’s murder. Morton spent 25 years in prison before being exonerated in 2011 through DNA evidence. His conviction was partly based on unreliable forensic testimony, including misinterpretation of bloodstain evidence.

Morton’s case highlighted the flaws in the system and led to widespread calls for change. This ultimately resulted in two major reforms:

1. The Michael Morton Act (2013), which required prosecutors to open their files to defendants and keep records of the evidence they disclose.
2. The passage of Senate Bill 344 (2013) addresses outdated and unreliable scientific evidence.

The Revolutionary Senate Bill 344 (2013)

Senate Bill 344 (SB 344) is a Texas law passed in 2013 to tackle the problem of outdated or unreliable scientific evidence—also called junk science—used in criminal trials. The law allows courts to reopen cases and review convictions if the science used to convict someone has since been proven inaccurate or unreliable.

Why Was SB 344 Needed?

Before SB 344, people who were wrongly convicted because of outdated scientific methods had very few options to challenge their cases. Traditional appeals focused mostly on legal mistakes, not whether the science itself was correct.

Before SB 344, defendants had few options to challenge convictions based on outdated science. Traditional appeals focused on procedural errors, not the validity of the scientific evidence itself.

High-profile cases revealed that many scientific methods—such as bite mark analysis, arson patterns, and hair comparison—were flawed. This outdated science led to wrongful convictions, shaking public trust in the justice system.

How Does SB 344 Work?

Under SB 344, individuals can ask courts to reopen their cases if:

1. New or updated scientific evidence contradicts the evidence used at trial.
2. The court determines this updated evidence would have likely changed the outcome of the case.

Steps to Challenge a Conviction Under SB 344:

1. Filing a Motion: Defendants or their attorneys file a motion under Article 11.073.
2. Providing New Evidence: The motion must include credible new scientific findings that invalidate the previous evidence.
3. Judicial Review: The court evaluates the motion and determines if the new evidence is significant enough to warrant overturning the conviction or ordering a retrial.

Importantly, SB 344 applies retroactively, meaning older cases can still be reviewed.

Real Life Cases Impacted by SB 344

1. Neal Robbins (2016)

In 2016, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals overturned Neal Robbins’ conviction. Robbins had been found guilty of murdering a child based on testimony from a forensic pathologist who later recanted, admitting the science was flawed. SB 344 gave Robbins the opportunity to challenge the unreliable testimony, leading to justice.

2. Steven Chaney (2015)

Steven Chaney spent 28 years in prison after being convicted of murder based on bite mark analysis. Advances in forensic science later proved bite mark evidence unreliable, and Chaney’s conviction was overturned under SB 344.

3. Cameron Todd Willingham (Posthumous Review)

Although Willingham was executed in 2004, his conviction was based on discredited arson science. Subsequent reviews revealed the investigation relied on flawed methods. Willingham’s case became a rallying cry for reform and underscored the need for SB 344.

These cases highlight the profound impact of SB 344 in correcting wrongful convictions caused by flawed science. Texas’s leadership in this area is inspiring other states to adopt similar reforms, setting a national standard for justice based on reliable, evolving evidence.

• California passed laws allowing challenges to convictions based on flawed scientific evidence.
• States like New York and Michigan are considering similar bills to address wrongful convictions caused by junk science.

Texas’s leadership highlights the importance of ensuring that courts rely on credible, evolving science to deliver justice.

Challenges in Implementing SB 344

While SB 344 has been a major step forward, challenges remain:

1. Access to Experts: Many defendants struggle to find and afford credible scientific experts to support their motions.
2. Judicial Resistance: Some courts are hesitant to reopen old cases, citing the need for finality in convictions.
3. Proving the Impact: Defendants must show that new scientific evidence would have changed the trial’s outcome—a high legal burden to meet.

Despite these hurdles, SB 344 has made it possible for wrongful convictions based on junk science to be challenged and corrected.

Arrested? Don’t Plea, Call Me!

Texas’s Junk Science Laws have transformed justice by giving hope to those wrongfully convicted due to flawed science. These reforms ensure that truth—not outdated methods—determines guilt or innocence.

If junk science played a role in your case, you deserve a second chance. At Texas Criminal Defense Group, we fight tirelessly to protect your rights and challenge unreliable evidence. Call us today to start your path to justice.