When Vincent Sanchez went to trial for the high-profile 2001 abduction and murder of 20-year-old Megan Barroso in California, DNA—a.k.a. the new “gold standard” at the time for evidence in criminal cases—was essentially useless. Investigators had plenty of physical evidence working against Sanchez (Barroso’s jacket, for instance, was found behind his house), but DNA couldn’t explain what Sanchez, who had previously admitted to a string of brutal crimes known as the Simi Valley rapes, had done or planned to do to Barroso before allegedly killing her.

That was a crucial element of the story jurors needed to know before deciding whether to convict Sanchez on murder charges, and potentially sentence him to death. And what ended up sealing the deal for prosecutors was a small, glimmering piece of trace evidence that’s almost impossible to get rid of: red glitter.

Criminalist Edwin Jones found 10 pieces of the glitter while examining the body of Barroso—glitter that she had worn at a Fourth of July party hours before her murder—and later discovered more flecks in the front seat of Sanchez’s truck, the truck bed, and on the jacket identified at his house. Matching those tiny specks of glitter back to an empty bottle provided by Barroso’s friend proved critical to the case, and in 2003, Sanchez was found guilty of first-degree murder and given the death penalty.

But what if there hadn’t been a trace evidence specialist like Jones, or any analyzer for that matter, to study that glitter? The future of trace analysis, experts warn, could look like one with a lack of experts or facilities equipped to analyze microscopic-yet-mighty evidence, and that could plague criminal investigation sooner rather than later.

Trace evidence analysis is often the most versatile and critical part of piecing together a crime, but the area of forensic science may be in grave danger. As explained in this intriguing Pop Mech feature, innocuous objects like glitter can make a case, but the number of trace analysts actively working in crime labs to study those pieces of evidence are now few and far between.

Watch a crime TV show, and you’ll likely see the star investigators collecting and studying trace evidence to catch the criminal and solve the case. Everything from ballistics to fiber analysis falls under the purview of trace analysts, and it’s these minute pieces of evidence that often paint the bigger picture of a crime scene, and lead to arrests and convictions.

DNA analysis teams have become staples at crime labs since the 1980s, and scientists continue to improve DNA technology with each passing year. With data and other consumer DNA testing companies like 23andMe and Ancestry available, DNA has even helped investigators finally solve cold cases that sat dormant for decades.

So what falls by the wayside when funding goes toward DNA testing? Trace analysis. This Pop Mech feature details the dilemma:

But if you want [glitter] to tell the tale of your death, you’d better hope that there are some trace evidence analysts around to process it and that your murder is high-profile enough to warrant their involvement. Jones says a few private labs have sprung up to fill the voids left at smaller jurisdictions; at a California Association of Criminalists meeting, he heard of a large lab using grants to acquire and share instruments with labs that have less funding.

But not every investigation even yields DNA evidence—so why does trace analysis seem to be going extinct? Not only are crime labs not investing in it, but the profession itself requires an extensive skillset, and it can take years for an expert to get trained in all areas of study that fall under the umbrella of trace analysis. “Gunshot residue, hairs, fibers, paint, glass, all these things have their own training,” Michael Trimpe, trace evidence expert for Hamilton County Coroner’s Crime Laboratory, explains in the full Pop Mech feature. “Some you could do in a matter of months maybe, but some take years.”

That’s why criminalists believe stories like that of the red glitter that solved Barroso’s murder can help keep the vital area of forensic science alive. Many have even come together and created outreach organizations like the American Society of Trace Evidence Examiners to push back against the threat of, as Trimpe calls it, “wide scale short sightedness.”

You never know if a tiny piece of fiber, shard of glass, or even a colorful flake of glitter could be the piece of evidence turns an unsolvable investigation into a home-run case. That trace evidence analysis may continue to be the core of nearly every procedural crime show on TV—but what about in the real world?

For more on the murder solved by glitter and a deeper look at the fascinating roles trace analysts play in criminal investigations, read the full story now.