> but the person that wants to have it analyzed will have to either spend the time themselves, or pay the expert witness for their time; it could be a costly affair.
Sure.
And the prosecution using the company claiming to have "totally reliable DNA evidence" should be totally on the hook for those costs (plus damages) when that analysis or expert witnesses show up "reasonable doubt" flaws in the software or the processes in which that software is used, including then risking retrials or mistrials of all other cases in which it was used.
If the prosecutors want to play high stakes games with defendants lives and liberty using "evidence" from proprietary software or devices, they need to be held to the consequences of losing their stakes.
[Edit: I wonder what the legal system would think of a CyberGenetics competitor funding the expert witness analysis of their software on behalf of the defence???]
Sure.
And the prosecution using the company claiming to have "totally reliable DNA evidence" should be totally on the hook for those costs (plus damages) when that analysis or expert witnesses show up "reasonable doubt" flaws in the software or the processes in which that software is used, including then risking retrials or mistrials of all other cases in which it was used.
If the prosecutors want to play high stakes games with defendants lives and liberty using "evidence" from proprietary software or devices, they need to be held to the consequences of losing their stakes.
[Edit: I wonder what the legal system would think of a CyberGenetics competitor funding the expert witness analysis of their software on behalf of the defence???]