NOT GUILTY? DNA says otherwise. When there is DNA evidence for a trial, it's pretty much a done deal! With technology advancing so fast, DNA as evidence is easier to detect on a victim. That doesn't mean it's the correct DNA.
There has been cases where a lab technician has had evidence from one case in the same area while testing another case and the evidence gets cross contaminated. For example, in the article, "The dark side of DNA," Kirk Makin discusses how, "There was an incident several years ago, a developmentally handicapped girl in Australia was connected to the murder of a toddler hundreds of miles away based on DNA found on the victim's clothing. It turned out that the developmentally handicapped girl had recently reported being sexually assaulted. A condom connected with the assault was being tested in a forensic lab at the same time as the murdered child's clothing." Also, a lab in Texas got shut down because it was getting too many false errors in their results. The technicians were not well-trained, causing cross contamination and weren't preserving the evidence correctly. Due to these errors, many cases had to be re-opened in Houston,Texas because the evidence was not immaculate. The sad part about having DNA as evidence is that some lawyers don't even try to fight it, they rather have you accept a plea deal to get less time locked up.