Which of these statements is true regarding the use of testimony on hair samples in courts today?

(a) hair samples are replacing dna as an easily available, go-to source for identifying suspects.

(b) modern changes in the discipline mean that any police officer can provide testimony on hair samples.

(c) hair samples are necessary for most convictions.

(d) there's solid research that should lead us to be skeptical of testimony based on hair samples.

I would say A

Explanation:

Due to the simple fact that a hair simple contains DNA

Also, It couldn't be B because it is not a form of discipline

Where In the option of C it is not necessary for a conviction

Answer choice D; a hair sample is not going to lead to skeptical testimony because it is not testimonial evidence.

answer:

it is not true that when a bullet is fired, gunpowder only travels back towards the shooter. though gunpowder residue can remain on the shooter's hand for a few hours.

explanation:

answer: no there are many laws put in place to stop you but if you somehow passed the tests than you could.

explanation: