Well that's a whole another ball of wax, or the other size of the sword depending on how you look at it. There are a good number of cases that people are convi

Well that's a whole another ball of wax, or the other size of the sword depending on how you look at it. There are a good number of cases that people are convicted on faulty forensic science many of them not nearly as egregious as the one you describe. Most of the time it still comes from detectives gut feeling, not forensics, that turns a witness into a suspect. The forensics don't come into they are trying to build a case against you. Sometimes the forensics comes from the witness cooperating to give DNA, bite marks, etc as you mentioned. People who cooperate fully only to be wrongfully accused. The real problem is proving the forensics are wrong. Combating faulty forensics is a huge task to bear that can take years too. People who have lost 20 years in jail because the forensics were done by unqualified people or simply incorrect. Sometimes I hear the science explained by the shows and I wonder how in the world is it true. Who verified these results? Who defines what is unique and what isn't? Particularly questionable is techniques that prove uniqueness.