Study raises questions about DNA evidence

[Dexter]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151028133944.htm

If your DNA is found on a weapon or at a crime scene, does that make you guilty? A judge or jury might think so, but a new study from the University of Indianapolis shows that secondary transfer of human DNA through intermediary contact is far more common than previously thought, a finding that could have serious repercussions for medical science and the criminal justice system.

[Oceander]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151028133944.htm

That could be potentially serious.  I can see the courts being clogged for years with (legitimate) appeals and suits for rehearing based on attacking the validity of the dna evidence because dna evidence nowadays is generally treated as sometimes even better than the smoking gun itself.

[EC]

It's something that has always bothered me.

Not DNA from blood or semen, that is pretty cut and dried (if you'll excuse the pun), but from hairs or saliva on the scene? Seriously, have you ever LOOKED at the bottom of your shoes after a walk down the street? Or the back of your sweater after driving a cheapo rental?