Ofcourse,theInterrogatorshavetolistentothethealibiofthesuspect, butusually,theDNAproofisconvicthim/her. ThoughDNAevidencewasn'ttotallyacceptedatfirst,itsoonbecametobeacriticalrole inprosecutingcriminals.Yousee,aftertestingthingslike"bloodonthedefendant'swatch" (Unknown,2006),youcantrulyfindenoughevidencetoeitherprosecuteasuspect,orrelease himfromcustody.BecauseDNAevidenceissoaccuratethesedays,whenshowingthatthe suspectsDNAtestwaspositivewiththatfoundatthecrimescene,thesuspectwillusually pleadguiltytolowertheircharge,suchaslowera35yearsentencetoa25year. InNewYork,amanbythe(last)nameofCastro,wasconvictedofthemurderofman (whowasunnamed.)Thiswasalandmarkmurdercasecommonlycitedasthefirstserious challengetotheadmissibilityofDNAevidence.(Unknown,2006)Thiscasewasconsidered landmarkwasbecausethiswasthefirstcaseinwhichevidencefromDNAwasbroughtinto thetrial.However,sincethiswasthefirstcaseinwhichDNAevidencewasused,manypeople believeittobewrongorfalse,sotheycouldntconvictCastro.Theydidntfindenoughevidence toprovehimguilty,butalsodidntfindenoughtoprovehisinnocence.