This same article examines the history of DNA evidence and recognizes that when the evidence was first presented to the courts, the new type of identification was initially accepted without question, however, critics quickly argued that DNA testing was problematic due to the reliability and validity of the probative value of the evidence. For example, DNA exoneration cases suggest that forensic identification errors have led to a high number of wrongful convictions and there are concerns that media coverage of forensic evidence on television shows Popular arguments lead jurors to unfairly evaluate DNA evidence before making their decision on the facts of a case. trial (Carrell, 2008). Additionally, in recent DNA exoneration cases, courts and juries have had difficulty analyzing expert testimony on forensic identification evidence. According to the article, in 86 DNA exoneration cases, forensic errors were the second leading cause of wrongful conviction, behind eyewitness misidentification (Carrell,