Texas junk science laws give convicted individuals a legal pathway to challenge faulty forensic evidence used against them in court. Specifically, Article 11.073 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure allows a person to seek a new trial if the science that helped convict them has since been discredited or corrected.
Texas passed this law in 2013, making it the first state in the country to do so. Since then, California, Connecticut, Michigan, Nevada, and Wyoming have adopted similar statutes. That’s not a small deal. It signals that the legal community has started acknowledging something forensic scientists had been saying for years: some courtroom “science” was never science to begin with.
What Article 11.073 Actually Does in a Texas Criminal Case
At its core, this law creates a formal appeals process rooted in updated or debunked scientific evidence. A person seeking relief under Article 11.073 must show two things:
- The scientific evidence presented at their trial was flawed, outdated, or has since been contradicted by newer findings.
- Without that evidence, there is a reasonable likelihood they would not have been convicted.
That second requirement, the “reasonable likelihood” standard, is where many petitions fall apart. The Texas Defender Service has noted that courts have applied this burden in a way that makes it nearly impossible for most appellants to succeed. As of this writing, no one facing execution has had their sentence overturned under this law since it took effect.
Forensic Techniques That Have Been Challenged as Junk Science
Several methods once considered reliable in American courtrooms have been seriously questioned or outright debunked. These include:
- Bite mark comparison: The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) found this method lacks a scientific foundation for individual identification.
- Hair microscopy: The FBI itself admitted in 2015 that analysts had overstated hair analysis evidence in hundreds of cases, including 32 death penalty convictions.
- Shaken baby syndrome diagnoses: Courts across the country, including in Texas, have revisited convictions where the medical science behind these diagnoses has been called into question.
- Arson investigation methods: Older arson science relied on “indicators” now known to be unreliable, leading to at least one high-profile Texas execution that drew intense scrutiny.
Each of these areas has directly fueled Article 11.073 petitions in Texas courts. The National Registry of Exonerations tracks cases nationwide where flawed forensic evidence contributed to wrongful convictions.
How the Modified Daubert Standard Shapes These Cases
Texas courts use what’s called a “modified Daubert” standard when evaluating scientific evidence. Judges consider factors like:
- Whether the theory or technique has been tested
- Whether it has undergone peer review and publication
- The known or potential error rate
- Whether the method relies heavily on subjective expert interpretation
This framework, rooted in the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals gives judges significant discretion. That discretion can cut both ways for defendants.
| Factor | Favorable for Defendant | Unfavorable for Defendant |
| New peer-reviewed studies discrediting the method | Strong grounds for appeal | N/A |
| Expert interpretation was heavily subjective | Supports argument of unreliability | Harder to quantify in court |
| Original expert has since recanted | Significant weight | Rare occurrence |
| Evidence was central to the conviction | Boosts “reasonable likelihood” standard | N/A |
House Bill 115 and Recent Changes to the Law
Texas lawmakers recently approved House Bill 115 by a vote of 124 to 14, a strong signal that legislators recognized the original law had gaps. Key changes under HB 115 include:
- Low-income defendants are now entitled to an attorney when filing junk science appeals.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals must issue a written opinion any time it denies a junk science petition.
That second change matters more than it might seem. Written opinions create a paper trail and allow advocates, researchers, and future defendants to understand what courts require and where petitions tend to fail.
These changes matter because the appeals process is procedurally complex, and anyone navigating it benefits from resources like how to protect your driver’s license after a DWI arrest in Texas before taking action.
How Texas Compares to Other States
California, Connecticut, Michigan, Nevada, and Wyoming have enacted similar statutes, though Texas’s 2013 law remains the model. The practical success rates of those states’ laws have not been widely documented, which arguably makes Texas’s ongoing reform efforts even more significant for national criminal justice policy, as explored in materials covering your guide to stand your ground laws in Texas.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: Who qualifies to file an Article 11.073 petition in Texas?
Anyone convicted of a crime in Texas may file if the scientific evidence used against them has since been proven unreliable or false.
The petitioner must show the flawed evidence was central to the conviction and that updated science would have likely changed the outcome. Both capital and non-capital defendants can file, though procedural hurdles differ significantly between the two.
Q: How long does a junk science appeal take in Texas?
There is no fixed timeline; Article 11.073 appeals can take months to several years depending on court backlog and complexity.
Cases requiring new expert witnesses or extensive forensic review naturally take longer. HB 115’s requirement for written opinions on denied appeals may help establish clearer timelines over time.
Q: Does filing a junk science petition automatically stop an execution?
No, a petition alone does not halt an execution; a separate stay of execution must be requested and granted by the court.
Texas courts treat these as distinct legal proceedings. Timing is critical, and defendants in capital cases need experienced legal counsel immediately when pursuing this route.
Q: What makes bite mark evidence “junk science” under Texas law?
Bite mark comparison lacks sufficient scientific validation to reliably identify a specific individual as the source of a bite wound.
The National Academy of Sciences and multiple forensic bodies have raised serious concerns about its reliability. Texas courts have considered bite mark challenges under Article 11.073, though outcomes vary by case.
Q: Can someone get a lawyer for free to file a junk science appeal?
Under HB 115, low-income defendants are now entitled to appointed counsel when pursuing an Article 11.073 appeal in Texas. This was a major gap in the original 2013 statute.
Don’t Let Flawed Science Decide Your Future
Scientific evidence can be persuasive in court, but it is not infallible. As forensic methods evolve, techniques once accepted as reliable may later be proven inaccurate or unsupported. Texas’s junk science law gives individuals a way to challenge convictions based on outdated or discredited scientific evidence, but these cases are legally and procedurally complex.
If you believe flawed forensic evidence played a role in your conviction or the conviction of someone you care about, it’s important to have an experienced criminal defense attorney evaluate the case as soon as possible. A thorough review of the trial record, expert testimony, and current scientific research can help determine whether relief under Article 11.073 may be available.
At BRCK Criminal Defense Attorneys, we carefully examine every piece of evidence and stay current with developments in forensic science to protect our clients’ rights. Contact our team today for a confidential consultation to discuss your case and explore your legal options.