Who sets the standards for admissibility of science in courts is the core issue. The history of science in courts contains rules (Frye, Daubert, Kunho) talking about the need for peer review.
“Is inadmissible hearsay.” That’s another way of saying scientific peer review of forensics in US courts is not necessary even though “reproducibility” is a a fundamental tenet of the scientific method.
PCAST said: Mixture DNA software needs review by entities other than the manufacturer.
The defense argues that the PCAST statement regarding acceptable limits to considering the amount of minor DNA contributing has not been met in this case. Thereby making its use in this case “novel” and deserving further pre-trial scrutiny.