The way I see it, if you have evidence that implicates one person, and it is good evidence--good enough to convince a grand jury, good enough to convince a judge, and good enough to convince a jury...
All that 'good' means in this context is that the police and prosecution did a good sales job, all too often to juries predisposed to believe a person wouldn't be brought to trial in the first place if they weren't guilty.
... Then DNA from another person can only implicate another person. It can't exonerate the first person. It can't make all that other evidence go away, or not mean anything. The first person is still implicated by all that good evidence.
It should however require a person of good conscience to look and see what the quality of all that 'good' evidence really was. All too often in case where DNA points the finger at someone else it turns out the other evidence was smoke and mirrors. Eyewitnesses given a subtle nudge to pick out the right person, confessions obtained by dubious tactics, grandiose claims about physical evidence that bear no relation to reality.
So when it comes to post-trial DNA evidence, we're really just talking about a few fringe cases where a) the evidence implicating the first person really wasn't all that good, and b) DNA from someone else really does somehow exonerate the first person.
And of course you have the numbers to back up the claim its a few fringe cases right?
For example, if seventeen credible witnesses all swore they saw the whole thing and there was only one rapist, and circumstantial evidence implicates one person, but DNA taken from the sperm sample implicates another person.
You seem to be suggesting that eyewitness testimony is compelling when it's often just short of useless. In the real world I'm willing to bet your 17 witnesses would describe a tall/short/skinny/fat/bald/man wearing a cap who was bearded/clean shaven.
Last edited: