@Terrificli -- having scientific evidence is one thing. Convincing a jury it is credible is quite another. A scientist who doesn't come off well to a jury may, in fact, help a defendant's case. This is particularly true in instances when a witness is relaying highly complex testimony that isn't explained well to a jury.
In other words, explaining what evidence means is as important as having good evidence to present. To that end, scientists must take pains to make sure they can address typical folks and explain complex concepts in terms that jurors can grasp.