DNA evidence is considered infallible within the justice system, should it be? Here's a paper from 2009. [1] Around the same time the paper was published, the author was quoted in a NYT article [2] (again, nearly a decade ago) saying, "“You can just engineer a crime scene, any biology undergraduate could perform this.”" Think about how much this field developed within the past decade. Here [3] is another paper from the end of last year about looking at methylation signatures on DNA to profile the person it belongs to. Imagine the possibility of finding badly degraded DNA at a crime scene and still being able to say, "whoever did this, they have this skin color, they're within this age range, they're a smoker, and they have frequent exposure to this particular industrial chemical." Minority report wasn't imaginative enough.
I'm concerned about this being used politically, I think it's possible with enough money and motivation. I think our courts are too addicted to open-and-shut convictions to reevaluate the validity of DNA evidence going forward.
[1]: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2009.06.009