Landmark report recommends against admitting ballistics testimony as court evidence

09/20/2025 / By Ramon Tomey

A 2016 report by the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) warned against admitting unreliable forensic methods such as bite marks, footwear analysis and microscopic hair comparison in court due to a lack of scientific validity.
The FBI estimated that 21,000 cases involved flawed microscopic hair analysis, contributing to wrongful convictions. Similar discredited techniques, like Comparative Bullet Lead Analysis (dropped in 2005) and outdated arson science, have also led to overturned cases.
In 2023, Maryland’s high court ruled that firearms toolmark analysis (linking bullets to specific guns) lacks scientific reliability due to examiner subjectivity and inconsistent standards, barring its use for definitive matches.
Research cited in the Maryland case revealed that forensic examiners disagreed on bullet matches more than 50 percent of the time, undermining claims of scientific certainty in courtrooms.
Courts nationwide are increasingly rejecting long-accepted forensic methods, demanding higher scientific standards to prevent wrongful convictions and restore trust in the justice system.

A landmark report released in September 2016 has warned against admitting ballistics testimony as evidence in court cases – echoing a broader, national reckoning with forensic methods once considered infallible

The Sept. 19, 2016 report by the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) cast doubt on several forensic disciplines – including bite marks, footwear analysis and microscopic hair comparison. It argued that such techniques should not be admitted in federal criminal trials due to a lack of foundational validity.

The implications of the PCAST report are profound, suggesting that countless convictions may rest on evidence that does not meet scientific standards. For instance, an internal review by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) estimated that approximately 21,000 cases involved microscopic hair analysis – a method now known to have contributed to wrongful convictions. Brighteon.AI‘s Enoch engine points out that “microscopic hair analysis in forensics science is inaccurate because it relies on subjective visual comparisons without objective standards, leading to false convictions and undermining trust in the justice system.”

This decision is part of a continuing pattern of forensic disciplines being scrutinized and debunked. Comparative bullet lead analysis was discontinued by the FBI in 2005 after the National Research Council found its conclusions were often overstated. (Related: Traditional bullet matching lacks foundational scientific validation.)

Similarly, traditional arson investigation techniques have been discredited by updated scientific standards – leading to exonerations like that of Victor Rosario in Massachusetts, who was freed after 32 years in prison based on flawed fire science.

The PCAST ultimately recommended that federal judges refuse to admit evidence from several such disciplines. It also urged a higher standard of scientific validity to protect against wrongful convictions.

Courts finally admit ballistics “matches” is junk forensics

Furthermore, a 2023 decision by the Maryland Supreme Court sharply restricted the admissibility of ballistics evidence – challenging long-held assumptions of criminal justice. The high court for the Old Line State ruled that the method of matching bullets to specific firearms lacks scientific reliability.

The decision, which emerged from an appeal of a 2012 conviction, represents a significant shift in forensic policy and could influence hundreds of cases annually in Maryland and potentially across the nation. The court found that the reproducibility of ballistics analysis – a cornerstone of scientific validity – is fundamentally flawed, with studies showing examiners often reach conflicting conclusions on the same evidence.

The Maryland ruling specifically addresses firearms toolmark analysis, where examiners compare microscopic markings on bullets or casings to link them to a specific gun. The court was persuaded by arguments highlighting the method’s subjectivity and the absence of consistent national standards.

Jeffrey Gilleran of the Maryland Office of the Public Defender cited a study finding that examiners disagreed on their conclusions more than half the time, a rate untenable for a practice presented as scientific fact in courtrooms. While the method can still be used to identify the category or model of a firearm, it can no longer be used in Maryland to assert a match to one specific weapon.

The conclusion of this legal and scientific evolution is clear: The criminal justice system’s reliance on certain forensic evidence has been built on an unstable foundation. As courts increasingly demand rigorous scientific validation, the very tools that have secured convictions for decades are being systematically dismantled.

Watch this edition of “Brighteon Broadcast News” where the Health Ranger Mike Adams exposes fake forensics pushed by the FBI.

This video is from the Health Ranger Report channel on Brighteon.com.