When the Science Is the Whole Case
In a serious case, the evidence that scares people most is usually the forensic evidence. A DNA hit. A fingerprint. Cell-site data that supposedly puts you somewhere. A toxicology report with a number on it. It feels like proof. It is not proof until someone who understands the science has tested it, and most of the time on the defense side, no one ever does.
That gap is what I built my practice to fill. The State presents this evidence as if it settles everything, when the truth is that labs make mistakes, analysts misread data, and experts routinely say more than the science can support.
I began my career as an Assistant Public Defender in Florida’s Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, and I am one of only six attorneys in Florida, and just over a hundred in the country, recognized as a Forensic Lawyer-Scientist by the American Chemical Society. On the breath and blood chemistry I am trained in, I read the raw data myself. On DNA, fingerprints, cell-site, digital, and medical evidence, I bring in the right expert and cross-examine the State’s analyst on method, on chain of custody, and on the assumptions hiding inside the conclusion. Learn more about my background.
Why a Forensic-Minded Defense Matters
A lawyer who does not understand the science cannot really challenge it. They will not catch the moment an expert’s conclusion runs past what the data shows, and they will not know which defense expert to call. Florida applies the Daubert standard for expert testimony under section 90.702, Florida Statutes, which lets us attack a method’s reliability, its known error rate, and the way it was applied, before a jury ever hears it.
The Forensic Evidence We Challenge
The Experts We Bring In
Across these cases we work with forensic pathologists, toxicologists, DNA analysts, fingerprint examiners, cell-site and digital-forensics experts, and accident reconstructionists, and we choose the one who fits the exact weakness in the State’s evidence. The right expert turns a cross-examination from a guess into a dismantling.
What a Forensic Challenge Looks Like, Step by Step
A real forensic defense is not a single motion. It is a sequence. First, we demand the complete file, not the one-page report, which means the bench notes, the raw electronic data, the calibration and maintenance logs, the chain of custody, and the laboratory’s own standard operating procedures. Second, an independent expert reviews that material and tells us where the analysis is soft. Third, where the method or its application will not hold up, we file a motion under section 90.702 to limit or exclude it before trial. Fourth, if the evidence comes in, we cross-examine the State’s analyst on the exact weaknesses the review found.
Each step builds on the one before it. Skipping the file review and going straight to cross is how good issues get missed, because the doubt is almost always in the underlying data rather than in the conclusion the analyst wrote down.
When to Bring Me In
The earlier the better. Evidence degrades, records get overwritten, and the window to preserve a phone, a blood sample, or a scene does not stay open forever. Early involvement also means we can ask the State to preserve and produce material before it is lost, and we can line up the right expert while there is still time to use them.
If you are an attorney with a strong case but a forensic problem you would rather hand to someone who reads the data, that is work I take on, whether you want to stay involved or step back entirely.
How I Approach a Forensic Case
I start with the raw material, not the summary. That means the bench notes, the electronic data, the calibration and maintenance records, the chain of custody, and the analyst’s own file, because the one-page report is where the doubt is hidden rather than where it is shown. From there we decide what to test, which expert to retain, and whether the method itself can survive a Daubert challenge.
Common Questions
Is forensic evidence always reliable?
No. DNA, fingerprints, cell-site data, toxicology, and the rest are produced by people and machines that make mistakes. Labs mix up samples, analysts misread results, and experts often state conclusions the underlying science does not support. The only way to know is to have someone qualified review the raw data, not just the summary report.
Can DNA evidence be wrong?
Yes. DNA results depend on how a sample was collected, stored, and interpreted, and mixed or low-level samples are especially open to error. An independent analyst can review the bench notes and the raw electronic data and find misread results the State’s report never mentions.
Do I really need my own expert?
In a case that turns on forensic evidence, often yes. The State will put up an expert who says the evidence proves guilt, and without your own expert the jury hears only one side. The right expert is what gives a cross-examination its teeth.
You are known for DUI science. Can you handle other forensic evidence?
Yes. My deepest hands-on training is in the chemistry behind breath, blood, and urine testing, which I read myself. For DNA, fingerprints, cell-site, digital, and medical evidence, I bring in the right expert in that field and cross-examine the State’s analyst on method, chain of custody, and the assumptions behind the result.
Does challenging the science cost more?
Sometimes a case needs an expert, and that is an investment. I am upfront about it, I bring in an expert only when it can move the case, and I explain the cost before you commit to anything.
This page is general information about Florida law, not legal advice, and it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Florida applies the Daubert standard for expert testimony under section 90.702, Florida Statutes. The reliability of forensic evidence depends on the methods, the analysts, and the facts of each case, and the science and the law can change, so confirm anything here with counsel about your own situation. Every case is different, and past results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
