I'm currently a criminal defendant in an ongoing case involving digital forensics. The state's expert witness testified one time so far and I was very impressed

I'm currently a criminal defendant in an ongoing case involving digital forensics. The state's expert witness testified one time so far and I was very impressed with his knowledge and demeanor. He really knew his tech and could explain it very well to a lay person. The problem was that the judge allowed a corrupt police detective to testify as a computer expert when he has no formal training in computer forensics and can babble on about things which are essentially science fiction and have them accepted by the judge as truth, leaving the appellate courts to try and untangle the mess. My biggest issue with these things in court is that your lawyer needs to have domain knowledge too. Your lawyer needs to not only be able to come up with a reasonable set of questions to challenge the opposing party's expert, but to also understand the answers and come up with new answers on-the-fly. There are very few lawyers who can do this, and they are expensive. In a criminal trial you are not going to find such a competent lawyer to represent you, and you are probably not going to get your own expert to dispute the state's version of events, either. So whatever the state's expert puts out there is going to be the "truth" for the purposes of trial.