The author's contention that judicial reviews of DNA testing are mixed is based on two primary factors. First, most jurisdictions that have admitted DNA test results reject the standard Frye rule of "general acceptance" in determining the admissibility of novel scientific evidence in favor of the more liberal "relevancy" approach. Second, certain court decisions hold that deficiencies in the particular testing laboratory's procedures preclude the admission of most test results. As more research is done with DNA testing and more experts are subjected to cross-examination, however, it is inevitable that current DNA techniques will be refined to meet the challenges. Although it has been suggested that the Castro court opinion set the stage for reopening 60 convictions in 27 States that hinged on similar DNA-related analysis, it is not considered likely that massive conviction reversals will occur. The author projects that DNA identification test results may become as commonplace in the courtroom as fingerprint evidence. 105 references.