https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...about-bad-forensics-and-was-prosecuted-for-it
He was an expert witness who realized the data was wrong--and the system turned on him when he wouldn't support them anymore.
In other news, water wet; Pope Catholic; Bears choose arboreal locations for defecation.
It's an adversarial system - Prosecutors are SUPPOSED to only care about getting convictions. The defense is supposed to only care about getting acquittals. The system is slanted to give the benefit of any doubt to the defence.
In the case discussed at your link, the prosecutors took the unusual step of prosecuting an expert witness, who they believed had demonstrably lied to the court; If he had in fact done so, then it would not be unreasonable to convict him of that offense. As it turned out, the prosecutors didn't have sufficient evidence to win their case; The witness was acquitted on two of the four charges, and the others were dropped. That's how the system is meant to work - prosecutors try to convict, and if they don't have a good case, they fail.
Only if we accept the popular (but incorrect) idea that prosecution is, in itself, a punishment to only be faced by the guilty, is there any news here at all.
The prosecution and subsequent acquittal of an innocent person should be viewed as a routine part of the working of the judicial process. That some feel that it is an unacceptable impost on the accused is merely an indication that the views of the people do not match the reality of the principles under which the law operates in an adversarial system.
