It's more of interest for curiosity's sake than anything else. It's always been the case that a person could be framed with "DNA evidence" with the considerably more low tech approach of obtaining leftover hairs or bits of skin (or legally mandated DNA samples for testing) and depositing them at the crime scene, or simply finding a lab willing to lie about carrying out a test. DNA testing as evidence has always relied on the assumption the people collecting and testing the samples are honest (and competent)
Sorry for the long post but I felt it was related and contains personal experience in a criminal case tried by a jury that I took part in:
----------
This always comes to mind when I think of anything to do with "DNA Evidence" or "using Lab analysis or DNA sequencing" in terms of crime scene evidence as the "most important" or "most damning" portion / part of evidence brought against a defendant:
Annie Dookhan, chemist at Mass. crime lab, arrested for allegedly mishandling over 60,000 samples
Like red light cameras, radar guns, drug dogs and anything else law enforcement and/or the government like to use to bolster their cases or work toward a more iron-clad / strong body of evidence to win their case it seems that DNA Evidence is something that was never really believable or strong beyond a shadow of a doubt.
I spent over a months time on a jury for a double attempted murder and while 95% of the testimony, expert analysis, and other direct / cross-examination was compelling enough to keep me focused and tuned in the lengthy, scientific, and overall information-packed expert testimony from the DNA Lab Scientist who performed the DNA Analysis did little to keep me awake.
Throwing endless numbers, percent chance that a sample is from a specific person, the likelihood that a sample could be from anyone beside a specific person, or the methods and means by which a scientist comes about determining the likelihood of a given sample belonging to a specific person seems like something [on paper] that should NEVER have been given enough credit to stand as evidence that could be believed beyond a shadow of a doubt. I felt certain, in those moments, that even the smartest folks on the jury and in the courtroom those days experienced little more than information overload, a lack of context, and certainly a sense of "I have to believe this because I'm not informed enough to question it and the world seems fairly certain that DNA Evidence is not only acceptable but highly accurate and therefore nearly useless to question".
It all felt and still feels like a grand performance akin to a magician using misdirection or sleight-of-hand to keep their audience paying attention to the exact wrong things.
----------
Lastly, I think it's also important to note that the defendant confessed immediately upon being picked up by the police without any lawyer present and it was all recorded on video and audio. The defendant was 99.999% guilty from all directions including analogical, anecdotal, character, circumstantial, demonstrative, digital, direct, exculpatory, forensic (beyond DNA), hearsay, physical, prima facie, and most damning: physical evidence.
I imagine in another case without such strong evidence beyond forensic evidence being the cornerstone of the State's evidence that the State would have liked to keep the case away from a Jury thus seeking a plea deal. I can only assume that would be the case, but from my POV in the ordeal the only reason the State spent so much specific time on forensic evidence was due to formality, due to due diligence, and because of the mountain of other credible evidence it served to bolster all of it.
Without any other hard evidence I can't imagine many juries taking only Forensic DNA Evidence as beyond a shadow of a doubt. No matter how certain or how close to 100% a scientist or lab analyst says a DNA Sample matches a certain persons the entire point of "without a shadow of a doubt" is to prevent innocent folks from winding up behind bars for things they didn't do when the people trying to get a conviction don't have the evidence, tactics, strategy or any other means to demonstrate the Defendant's guilt.
