So, it's foolish to take the DA's word on the sweat, but it's cool to take the defense's? OK.
No. Remember that the burden is on the state. It doesn't really matter if you accept the defense's version, but you have to be convinced of the state's theory beyond a reasonable doubt.
And I don't think anyone here actually believes the story that the prosecutor presented about the sexual assault, the knifing in the house, the shooting in the garage, etc. If the jury was actually doing its job, those inconsistencies should have been a huge problem for the state.
As for this kind of evidence, though, it really is foolish to accept the DA's theory that the DNA came from sweat because it's basically impossible to prove the actual source of so-called "touch DNA." It could come from any number of sources other than Steven actually touching or dropping sweat on that area.
That kind of proof is like some of the other types of pseudo-scientific evidence that I listed way back in this thread. Similar to that miraculous FBI blood test, touch DNA evidence is highly unreliable, and some courts have entirely excluded it from trials for that very reason.
On a somewhat related note, Romines talks about the FBI's track record of presenting false scientific evidence over the course of the last twenty years. Matt seemed shocked, and Romines told him to look it up. I suspect that Steve didn't want to draw attention to the fact that he represented Shane Ragland after his conviction was overturned by the Supreme Court. In that case, the FBI's ballistics expert admitted that the prior testimony about Shane's rifle and ammunition was false, and she ended up going to prison for perjury.
He's also referencing the FBI's recent admission that expert testimony offered about hair evidence over a period of decades has been flawed, unreliable, and inaccurate. Here's a link if anyone is interested:
FBI Admits Flaws in Hair Analysis Over Decades - Washington Post, April 18, 2015
Always remember--Everyone doubts the defendant because he "has a reason to lie," but the people on the other side have all kinds of incentives to lie as well. It's never prudent to accept the government's assertions about the significance of a particular piece of evidence without actually considering how they got it, who was responsible for securing it, how reliable their testing is, who conducted the tests, etc.
Believe me--The government regularly pushes the envelope on these kinds of issues even more so than the defense.
