Hopefully the underlying use of [mt]DNA in cases also gets some attention and reform. Simply identifying some kind of physical connection is hardly damning; it is inherently circumstantial. It's actually quite rare to finding damning DNA evidence unless the inference directly ties to the crime, i.e. with semen in sexual assault cases or blood in a suspect's car.

It's scary to think prosecutors have been pitching DNA as infallible, damning evidence all along. It means getting a defense attorney off their game might very well lead to an incorrect conviction (think Serial, though obviously the circumstances there are more tied to the use of the cell phone records). I don't think that technology is going to bring us easier convictions for a while yet (e.g. statistical analysis of evidence leading to inference ala Watson might be interesting). Somehow this isn't reflected in how juries have chosen, though, so I think public education about it (even via entertainment) might be the most effective way to change this.