>That's something that would have to be addressed at the trial by the defense attorney raising challenges.

This is the wrong point at which to correct the problem. When prosecutors are allowed to introduce "science" as their evidence, jurors give this way too much deference. It's the prosecutor basically saying "you're too stupid to understand it, so indulge my appeal to authority" and jurors tend to happily acquiesce. This is why judges are supposed to gatekeep expert testimony and not just let any quack step in and make outrageous claims... and despite their attempts, quacks have repeatedly done just that these past few decades.

If is true that the presence of DNA means essentially nothing, then it shouldn't be permitted to be introduced at trial. Protection from wrongful conviction shouldn't rest on someone having an attorney expensive enough to be able to unsway too-easily-swayed jurors with counter-specious arguments.