they won't be involved in the Daubert hearing, the hearing wont be focused solely on the prints from the crime scene but whether their is a solid case to be made that shoe print evidence as a whole is solid forensic evidence, I think it is time every defence atty began challenging evidence that courts have relied on for years without delving into its validity, bite mark evidence was once thought to be scientifically proven and was used to convict many, it is only now it has been discredited that the many people who were convicted and sentenced due to it's use are being seen to have been wrongly convicted,'I can't begin to say how much I look forward to George 4's attorneys trying to make these arguments in court, particularly when his brother and mother are both on the witness stand, under oath, telling the court what actually happened and why George4's shoe prints were there that night.
The more I consider it, the more I look forward to it. He may end up facing the DP after all.
JMO
I have issues with the over broad use of unvalidated forensic evidence used in courts, fingerprints are an art not a science, and in blind trials fingerprint examiners have been shown not to be able to match known samples,