MAY & COMPANY FORENSIC DECISIONEERING

Forensic Decisioneering for Systemic Evidence Reliability Failures

May & Company Forensic Decisioneering provides litigation-defensible forensic analytics and decision support for wrongful conviction and forensic abuse matters involving systemic reliability failures in scientific or technical evidence.

Our work focuses on methodological validity, error rates, bias, and expert overstatement—not reinvestigation of underlying facts. We assist legal teams in evaluating whether forensic evidence was reliably generated, properly applied, and appropriately presented in criminal proceedings.

Wrongful conviction matters involving forensic evidence turn on reliability, not narrative disagreement. Courts evaluating post-conviction petitions and appeals require quantified, methodologically sound analysis addressing whether evidence met admissibility standards at the time it was offered.

Our services are designed to support:

• Post-conviction relief petitions
   
• Motions challenging admissibility or scope of forensic evidence
   
• Appellate review of evidentiary reliability
   
• Pattern-and-practice demonstrations involving forensic methodologies
   

All work is structured for judicial scrutiny and adversarial testing.

We evaluate whether forensic methods were:

• Scientifically testable and validated
   
• Subject to known or potential error rates
   
• Governed by adequate standards and controls
   
• Reliably applied across affected cases
   

Engagements may include population-level analysis of forensic outputs to determine whether observed results reflect random error or structural unreliability.

Where forensic conclusions depend on scientific measurement or interpretation, we perform quantitative analysis to assess:

• False positive and false negative risk
   
• Measurement variance and drift over time
   
• Systematic bias introduced by protocols, equipment, or analyst discretion
   
• Consistency of application across cases
   

This analysis enables courts and counsel to evaluate reliability at scale, rather than on a case-by-case anecdotal basis.

We assess whether expert opinions were supported by the underlying methodology and whether testimony:

• Accurately reflected known limitations
   
• Disclosed relevant error rates
   
• Avoided overstated certainty
   
• Remained within the bounds of validated science
   

Our findings support expert limitation, exclusion, or impeachment in post-conviction and appellate proceedings.

All forensic decisioneering work is explicitly aligned to Daubert and related reliability standards, including:

• Testability and validation
   
• Known or potential error rates
   
• Existence and application of governing standards
   
• Reliability of application in the specific matter
   

Deliverables map analytical findings directly to the language courts use when evaluating admissibility and reliability challenges.

Typical deliverables include:

• Written forensic reliability reports suitable for filing or expert support
   
• Statistical analyses and court-ready exhibits
   
• Daubert factor mapping tables
   
• Expert testimony support and cross-examination analytics
   
• Case-prioritization analytics for post-conviction or innocence review programs
   

All deliverables are designed for repeatability, transparency, and adversarial review.

May & Company Forensic Decisioneering works exclusively with law firms and legal organizations. We do not provide general investigations, advocacy analysis, or academic research.

Our methodologies and outputs are built for direct use in litigation and judicial proceedings, eliminating the need to translate technical findings into legal arguments.

Counsel typically engage us when:

• Multiple convictions may rely on the same forensic methodology
   
• Reliability concerns extend beyond a single case
   
• Error rates or bias were not disclosed at trial
   
• Expert testimony may have exceeded scientific limits
   
• Courts require quantified reliability analysis rather than narrative critique