This chapter critically examines the cultural and institutional practices that sustain the use of forensic science and identification evidence despite longstanding awareness of their potential to contribute to wrongful convictions. We explore how courtroom norms, judicial gatekeeping, and perceptions about the expertise of witnesses enable the admission of unreliable evidence. The chapter highlights the cultural defence to expertise, the limitations of legal safeguards, and the challenges faced by jurors and defence lawyers in assessing forensic validity. Through case studies such as Gordon Wood and Kathleen Folbigg, the chapter reveals how legal culture, institutional inertia, and epistemic gaps between science and law combine to perpetuate risky evidentiary practice. The chapter also addresses the well-recognised fallibility of identification evidence, a leading cause of wrongful conviction internationally, through case studies like Terry Irving and Vincent Narkle. we underscore the potential for miscarriages of justice arising from flawed identification practices. These practices reflect systemic overconfidence in eyewitness reliability. High-profile Australian cases underscore how the criminal justice system often fails to safeguard against these risks, revealing a culture of deference to certain forms of evidence despite their known fallibility. Ultimately, this chapter emphasises the critical need for robust gatekeeping mechanisms and a cautious approach to these seemingly compelling, yet often unreliable, forms of evidence in the pursuit of justice.