Trust the 'experts' ... not

60 Minutes and The Washington Post teamed up to expose a scandal years in the making -- thousands of prisoners behind bars across the United States because of FBI testimony based on junk science.

For years, the FBI touted a monopoly on bullet-lead analysis -- a technique that claimed the ability to match the lead in a single bullet to its mates in a production run -- or even a single box. The effect of an FBI "expert" testifying that the bullet that killed a victim came from a defendant's nightstand can't be overstated. Juries certainly found it convincing. Lots of people went to jail based on the word of FBI experts.

But the FBI has known for years that the science doesn't live up to claims -- and it definitely doesn't back up the certainty that FBI experts claimed on the stand. The FBI has finally backed off bullet-lead analysis, but it's not going out of its way to let defense attorneys know that the testimony that sent their clients to prison is bogus.

This raises concerns similar to those brought to light by Reason magazine's Radley Balko, who has written about the lucrative career of Steven Hayne. Hayne testifies as Mississippi prosecutors' medical-examiner-of-choice, despite the fact that he claims to review so many cases each year that the National Association of Medical Examiners considers him ineligible for accreditation, because a competent job can't be done with such a workload. When his testimony has been reviewed by other medical examiners, it's often been found to be ... err ... implausible.

The Mississippi Supreme Court finally threw out Hayne's testimony in a murder case based on the small fact that his claims were scientifically impossible, and Balko's article has stirred much interest in Hayne's status. But Hayne continues his work.

The FBI and Hayne (and others like them) have been able to do their damage because the public at large defers to their expertise. These are officials with status and knowledge beyond that of the common person. When they start making formal pronouncements that might have been divined from the guts of sacrificed sheep, for all that they can be parsed by the average juror, what choice is there but to take their word as definitive on the matter at hand?

But these cases keep piling up. Because of hubris and laziness (the FBI) or greed (Hayne) or any number of other reasons, not every expert can be trusted. Giving credence to the fancy-sounding rituals and incantations summoned up by an expert witness in a trial isn't always the way to go.

But dismissing it out of hand isn't the way to go either. Real science and authentic expertise are always worthy of consideration.

So, how do you know which is which?

That's a tough call. But bringing a healthy skepticism with you wherever you go is probably a good starting point.