An...odd...headline

It seems that the AP has something against DNA evidence in criminal cases. They must; why else write a headline that implies that DNA evidence was in error when that was absolutely not the case?

But, it does make you wonder what really happened in the earlier case. But, then again, that's why so often previous conviction are inadmissible as evidence -- to avoid jurors like me saying, "What the hell?!??"

UPDATE: It seems that link up there doesn't take you where I wanted you to go. Try this one. But it doesn't have the peculiar headline, which was "Man Acquitted by DNA evidence guilty."