I think a bigger issue here, at least in the US, is prosecutions seems to have a really easy time finding experts, often on the same payroll as the prosecution, who say the things needed to get a conviction and jurors are encouraged to blindly trust that.
The problem is that one side of this equation has a cottage industry of well-funded experts to pick from, but there isn't a cottage industry of well-funded 'bullshit debunkers' to work for the defense.
The Daubert standard says the judge is a gatekeeper who can rule that a given expert's opinion will not be presented to the jury unless the expert's opinions are relevant, reliable, and based in scientific knowledge.
The "don't talk to the police" video has been shared enough times on HN that I know I will never do so, at least in the US. The video claims you are likely to incriminate yourself and be charged with something even if you didn't commit the crime the police is investigating!
a) Drug recognition experts -- commented that on a sibling comment too -- identifying drug usage vs e.g. trauma by sight.
b) blood alcohol levels imply alcohol consumption -- you could actually be walking around with elevated alcohol levels not realizing it due to liver issues+yeast biome/diabetes (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK513346/)
c) uniqueness of fingerprints -- studies pointing always this is a statistical argument not a unique identifier -- https://www.aaas.org/resources/latent-fingerprint-examinatio...
d) partial DNA match implying perfect match -- partial matches have been used to convict people
e) probably every depiction of mental illness -- there are exceptions but can't say Hollywood does its best there
f) lawyer interaction -- no your lawyer can't just barge in: you have to ask specifically and probably persist on needing a lawyer to consider any further interaction. (And even how you word that is a minefield in the U.S.)
g) talking to the police -- somehow invoking the fifth is something only bad guys do -- it is the other way around. And that is causing issues already.
h) DNA, fingerprints imply you were there. No material can be moved around. And police knows that. (And of course substances too, e.g. you were in a tax/uber after someone exposed to X, you are now exposed to X.)
i) pretty much all of statistics -- this case one would have hoped would be the eye opener (https://forensicstats.org/blog/2018/02/16/misuse-statistics-...)
P.S. j) ... science honestly? I am always dumbfounded with how much lack of basic scientific knowledge plagues courts and in extend society. Courts can not survive with uncertainty: they have to make decisions and stick to them. Science is different.