A man serving 50 years for murder just won a new trial over one piece of forensic evidence.
The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that the trial judge should have held a hearing to test the scientific reliability of gunshot-residue evidence before allowing the jury to hear it.
The residue evidence was the only evidence directly connecting Rashad Sellers to a firearm. There was surveillance footage and other circumstantial evidence, but no DNA tying him to the murder.
The state’s highest court concluded that admitting the evidence without first examining its reliability wasn’t harmless.
For defense attorneys, it’s another reminder that “forensic” doesn’t automatically mean admissible—or reliable.
-The Criminal Defense Brief