Reviewing recent case law, I came across US v. Henning, No. 20150410 (A.Ct. Crim. App. Sep. 3, 2015). This was a DNA case where the military judge suppressed DNA evidence in a sexual assault case.
Basically, the accused denied any sexual contact. Genetic material was recovered from the alleged victim's underwear. The DNA "experts" concluded that the accused "could not be excluded as a potential minor contributor....approximately 1 in 220 unrelated individuals in the general population would be a match to the minor contributor's profile..."
Defense attorneys in the case moved to suppress the DNA analysis on the grounds that it did not meet certain requirements of reliability and usefulness necessary for expert testimony. The judge granted the motion. Statistical analysis showed that about 7 people in the town where the assault happened could have contributed to the DNA profile.
The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the judge's ruling.
I'm reminded by my partner that this firm was the first firm to ever use DNA evidence in a military court-martial. US v. Scott.
The defense attorneys in that case are fighting a tough fight. At the end of the day, case strategy has to be developed in a way that accounts for all of the evidence - even the evidence that you try and exclude.