CSI on Trial
Host Molly Hermann reveals the lack of science behind some of the most well-known crime scene investigation tools, and tells the stories of the wrongfully convicted who went to prison for years.
Where to Watch
Trying to watch this from United States?
Some content may not be available in your region. Use a VPN to access streaming services from anywhere.
Unlock with NordVPNAffiliate link • We may earn a commission at no extra cost to you
Seasons & Episodes
1. Blood Pattern Analysis
Based on expert testimony from bloodstain pattern analysts a jury convicted former state trooper David Camm of killing his family. He was exonerated years later when a shocking new piece of evidence came to light. How did bloodstain pattern analysis get it so wrong? Is it good science?
2. Bite Mark Analysis
As a young sailor Keith Harward was convicted of a vicious assault based on bitemark analysis. After 33 years in prison DNA testing exonerated him and proved the bite evidence was junk. The bitemark analysis field has seen intense in-fighting and government investigations.
3. Firearm Examination
Firearms Analysis is one of the most common forensic science practices in the US but recently the science behind it has come under fire. The national battle over whether to allow firearms analysis evidence in court is not just theoretical.
4. Shaken Baby Syndrome
Suburban mom Audrey Edmunds was convicted of shaking a neighbor’s baby to death. But she was freed after 11 years when the pathologist who testified against her admitted he was no longer sure about Shaken Baby Syndrome.
5. Footwear Analysis
The shoe print at the grisly Idaho crime scene seemed to match Charles Fain’s shoe– both showed a small nail hole in the sole. Based on that physical evidence he was convicted and sentenced to death.
6. Arson Investigation
David Gavitt served almost 27 years in prison before new arson investigation science exonerated him. Anthony Kyles and countless others are still behind bars. What happens when the science behind crime scene investigations moves forward but legal precedent only looks backward?