I don't think it's meaningful to let defendant review the code each trial. Such code reviews should have been done before it was ever allowed to be used in the

I don't think it's meaningful to let defendant review the code each trial. Such code reviews should have been done before it was ever allowed to be used in the legal system. On the other hand, there's always the more practical option of getting the dna testing done by a second, third or even a tenth different approved company if the defendants want to pursue this line of reasoning. From what I understand, dna testing is statistical which means even if they find some bug in the code there will have to be extended debates on whether or not a particular bug affected the credibility of this test result. This is just bullocks. Having said that, the excuse the software company is giving is a bit lame.