The top comment under which my comment falls is about police use of forensic "science". >The big crime is how little epistemological support there is for some

The top comment under which my comment falls is about police use of forensic "science". >The big crime is how little epistemological support there is for some of the big forensic tools (fingerprints, DNA, bite marks, arson spread, etc), how little interest there is in researching these areas, and how trusted they are. But I am curious: apart from TV shows, how important is this kind of evidence in most trials? Is it actually uncommon?