This seems like an ongoing problem with science and the criminal justice system, especially in the US. Science, and the trustworthiness of science, become an ob

This seems like an ongoing problem with science and the criminal justice system, especially in the US. Science, and the trustworthiness of science, become an object of adversarial argument by non experts that have directly opposing interest, and which often face large disparities in resources with which to make that argument. I had a discussion years ago at a conference with an EFF member that they really ought to (obviously easy for me to suggest) hold training sessions for judges on the basics of how technology and the internet works. Otherwise, the courts seem enormously susceptible to bad analogies ('an I.P address is just like a physical mailing address') that are used in place of actual evidence.