"DNA enough to file indictments", and that's all it takes to get the ball rolling since few of them want to think about their "decisions"; now there's precedent. And this comes from a rape case where it's nearly always a she said he said situation. Prosecutors are bad enough trying to get a good conviction rate (better prospects later in private practice) now; soon they won't need do anything but pull a "DNA" out of a hat to pin a crime on someone.
There's no sense in even debating how error prone and bumbling, sham "CSI" crime laboratories remain, yet they will be churning out "incontrovertible evidence" on an industrial scale. It is documented common knowledge that these "labs" are error prone, yet courts will still admit their "expert" testimony and their "scientific" evidence.
Of course, it won't be abused. Right, Bill?
