How reliable is DNA in identifying suspects?

I've always wondered about this.
If I were on a jury, how much stock would I put into DNA evidence. On TV and in the News it is offend presented as "iron clad" proof. To me it's a "blackhole" or reather a "blackbox" something that works and I trust, but I can't see "inside" it, I can't see or even understand "how" it works. I just have to trust it.

So it's not really physical evidence, it's "expert" testimony. Physical evident must be something that I, as jury member, can actually see. A fingerprint is a good example. While matching fingerprints isn't always as easy, I could at least see them both and make my own judgement.

But with DNA evidence, there is nothing for a jury to "see". So I've always wonder if DNA alone could make me change my conclusion.

The use of science in the courtroom is great, but it does raise a concern for me. It move the decision away from the jury. The jury is already operating "in the blind" to a large extent. Evidence is suppressed, we are told to "disregard" something we just heard. We can't ask our own questions of witnesses. Now we are asked to just accept scientific evidence that we ourselves cannot understand. Why not just made the decision for us, why ask us to make our own decision in such an isolated mannor?


How reliable is DNA in identifying suspects? - Los Angeles Times