> It's not like you review all scientific evidence and re-do the experiments that lead up to the discovery of <insert some evidence method> in the first place. Validating all that would also take years and much of it can be established as generally accepted by all parties. Similarly, there will be some trust involved with this source code as well

There are a few important differences between a generally accepted method, and some Matlab black-box that you feed an input into, and it prints out 'guilty' and 'not guilty'.

1. The former is based on centuries of peer review, where the best ideas eventually get selected for. The latter is an externally un-reviewed application, which encapsulates the best of whatever we could ship by Thursday.

2. You can call an expert witness to the stand, and ask them questions about the state of the art of <some evidence based method>. You can ask them why. You can ask them about how certain one should be about their statements. You can't cross-examine a black box.

The actual solution to your quandary is to require that forensic analysis services must pass an annual, independent, double-blind analysis of the accuracy of their methods, before they are used in a courtroom - and that the results of those audits are made available to the defense.

It's one thing for a man in a lab coat to take the microphone and say that their methods are accurate 'to within one in a million'. It's quite another to see an audit, where 100 samples were sent in for analysis over six weeks, and only 92 of them were analysed correctly.

A jury might still convict on the basis of that 92% accuracy, but only if other meaningful evidence points against the defendant.

Unfortunately, the reality of forensic science in 2021 is that most of it is sloppy bunk, with no assurances of accuracy.