The Biggest Mistakes in Criminal Cases

When we think about criminal justice, it’s easy to focus on the courtroom drama—the judge’s gavel, the attorneys’ closing arguments, the jury’s verdict. But the truth is, some of the biggest mistakes happen far away from the bench. Outside the courtroom is where misinformation, rushed judgments, and distorted narratives quietly do the most damage. They twist the story before a trial even starts, sometimes sinking the chances of justice before a single witness testifies.

This isn’t just about rumor mills spinning out of control—it’s a systemic issue. The cycle feeds itself, with public pressure influencing prosecutorial choices and even shaping how evidence gets prioritized.

Here’s the thing: the court system is designed with rules to keep things fair. Evidence has to meet standards, witnesses can be cross-examined, and lawyers have to follow ethical codes.

• But the media?
• Social platforms?
• Online “experts”?

They do not answer to those rules. They can spin stories in any direction. And often, that direction is wrong.

Take the power of misinformation. It spreads fast, especially when true crime has become entertainment. Casual observers latch onto headlines or leaked tidbits, then form strong opinions based on incomplete or inaccurate information. Social media fans want answers and villains—quickly. That pressure leaks back to investigators and prosecutors, who sometimes feel pushed to close cases fast or shape narratives to satisfy public demand. It’s not just frustrating for the accused; it’s a real threat to innocent victims, witnesses, and the truth.

Then there’s the misuse of psychology. Terms like “profiling,” “mental illness,” or “intent” get tossed around by people who don’t fully understand the science. This isn’t about discrediting behavioral science—it’s about the careless way those concepts get popularized.

When armchair pseudo-experts claim they can “read” a suspect’s mind from any source—just because they’ve been obsessed with the case for decades—that doesn’t make them real experts. Instead, they reduce a complex science to sound bites, creating misleading stories people can’t shake.

This muddies the waters for real forensic experts and legal professionals.

The consequences are serious.

• Innocent people get painted as monsters before evidence is examined.
• Victims and their families get retraumatized by public speculation.
• Jurors can’t help but bring outside narratives into the courtroom, which challenges the impartiality that’s supposed to define the legal process.

And maybe worst of all, when cases collapse or convictions get overturned, the damage has already been done in the court of public opinion. This is why I wrote the books Social Media Monsters and Digital Lynch Mobs.

It’s easy to assume the truth will come out during trial. Sometimes it does. But more often, the chaos outside court shapes the story so deeply that the truth barely gets a chance to be heard. We have to remember that forensic science, law, and psychology work within systems designed to protect fairness—not chase clicks.

Truth needs more oxygen than lies and clickbait.

Final Thoughts

Justice is not a social media trend or a true crime episode to binge-watch on a weekend. It’s a careful, often slow process built on evidence, ethics, and respect for the people involved. The most dangerous missteps do not happen under the bright courtroom lights. They happen quietly, online—where misinformation and spectacle blur the lines between fact and fiction. Staying aware of that is the first step toward better outcomes for everyone.

Sources That Don’t Suck:

Kocsis, R. N. (2018). Criminal Profiling: Principles and Practice. Academic Press.

Roos, P., & Brown, A. (2017). Public perception of forensic evidence. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 62(5), 1401–1406.

Greathouse, S., & Jessup, D. (2020). The impact of media on criminal investigations. Law and Human Behavior, 44(3), 222–230.

PubMed Central: Misinformation and its effects on legal outcomes

Neuroscience research on judgment and bias: Google Scholar: Cognitive bias in decision-making