If the true crime phenomenon on streaming platforms and podcasts has proven anything in the recent decade, apart from our collective addiction to onscreen misery, it’s that courtrooms and science don’t mix well. “”

A popular Netflix series “Exhibit A” explores dozens of cases muddied by fringe scientific evidence, including Touch DNA, cadaver dogs and blood splatter evidence. Another new series on Hulu, “The Twisted Tale of Amanda Knox,” reveals a farcical Italian murder trial driven by badly interpreted evidence, resulting in Knox having her freedom stripped away for four years.

In the halls of justice, on TV or off, it’s not uncommon for prosecutors and plaintiff attorneys to introduce wild speculation, paid “experts” and agenda-driven research to spin their case in front of a judge. People love “experts” and never ask if they’ve been paid to present a limited viewpoint.

Just recently, we’ve seen paid experts and weak evidence advanced in headline-grabbing cases related to cancer claims associated with talcum powder drugs like Tylenol. The Trump administration has claimed rather forcefully that Tylenol is the culprit in the rise of autism. No reasonable scientific consensus has ever been proven on either claim, but that hasn’t been enough to stop the flood of lawsuits that have forced companies to shell out millions — even billions — in claims.

When judges and juries are persuaded despite contradictory evidence, the fallout is far more serious than payouts or warning labels. Millions of consumers who depend on these products can suddenly face shortages or sharp price spikes.

The spectacular claims put into such lawsuits include debunked claims about Roundup weed-killer causing non-Hodgkin lymphoma (which the EPA has repeatedly denied) and silicone breast implants causing large-scale health problems (not supported by evidence). It persists because an entire industry exists to recruit plaintiffs to sue the companies that make these products. It’s a hustle.

The $2.5 billion legal advertising industry uses television ads and increasingly podcast sponsorships to find willing clients who want a quick payday in exchange for having law firms take up their claims in court.

In response to the plague of junk science filling courtrooms, Federal Rule of Evidence 702 was introduced to empower courts to weed out testimony that strays too far from scientific fact. Recent updates passed last year have become even more stringent, weighing not only the credibility of expert witnesses but also their claims.

A recent 4th Circuit ruling in a case alleging a factory’s gas emissions caused cancer suggests courts aren’t applying the standard as intended. The court reversed a decision that had excluded expert testimony as unreliable, allowing a jury to weigh it instead — despite what the updated rule was meant to prevent. Meanwhile, many states still haven’t adopted these standards in their courts.

These small legalistic moves may seem quaint, but, piled up over time, serve to muddy the science and misinform patients before they sign on to lawsuits. The end result is that medical and consumer innovations that genuinely make our lives better get dragged through the mud. Firms divert funds that could have been used for product development to their legal departments. Promising new drugs are put on hold not for safety, but as a defense against unforeseen legal hazards, something we’re currently seeing with mRNA vaccines.

It’s not just the paychecks of well-heeled lawyers on the line but also the products and services of innovative industries used by us all. That fact doesn’t fit neatly onto the billboards advertising legal services.

Strict rules governing the presentation of evidence in court are not intended to deprive legitimately injured victims of their day in court. Far from it. Rather, it’s about restoring integrity to the justice system and public confidence in the process. The more we learn about the many gaps in our legal standards of evidence as reflected on Netflix and Hulu, the greater our responsibility to address them.

Published in DC Journal (archive #1, #2)

Syndicated in the Las Vegas Sun, Redmond Spokesman, and Journal Courier.