Over the past decade, I’ve been reading more and more about how forensic science isn’t well, scientific. It’s not replicable and rife with false assumptions. Listening to The Reload podcast, I heard the latest salvo – an article from Radley Balko about forensics firearms analysis.

Last February, Chicago circuit court judge William Hooks made some history. He became the first judge in the country to bar the use of ballistics matching testimony in a criminal trial.

Um, what? Why? Because the judge was skeptical about the claim that a specific bullet can be matched to a specific gun.

But as with other forensic specialties collectively known as pattern matching fields, the claim is facing growing scrutiny. Scientists from outside of forensics point out that there’s no scientific basis for much of what firearms analysts say in court. These critics, backed by a growing body of research, make a pretty startling claim — one that could have profound effects on the criminal justice system: We don’t actually know if it’s possible to match a specific bullet to a specific gun. And even if it is, we don’t know if forensic firearms analysts are any good at it.

Considering I am supposed to be reporting for jury duty next month, this is going to be fun to bring up during questioning.