Chemical analysis usually involves destroying part of the sample, and forensic sample sizes are often small to begin with. There is also the matter of doubling the cost.
What is going to be the COST associated with thousands of people contesting their convictions based on what this “scientist” did? What is is going to COST when these innocents sue for wrongful incarceration?
I’m all for throwing the book at the guilty... but let’s make really sure they are!
A close friend of mine was fired from a GREAT job because they said she tested positive for THC on a random drug test. This lady has never done a drug in her life! Wouldn’t know weed if it jumped up and bit her....
She immediately paid for a independent blood/urine/hair test that came back clean. She sued and won a multi-million dollar lawsuit.
The belief in the infallibility of scientific criminal evidence is laughable. Tests are wrong (for a whole host of reasons) all the time.
For something as serious as depriving someone of their life, liberty, or property.... we MUST be certain, regardless of the cost.
If the sample size is too small to be tested twice, then it couldn’t be tested by an independent lab paid for by the defense if it ever came to trial, which would likely make it inadmissable. So why bother to test such a small sample in the first place?