In a series of studies, the authors examined (a) public perceptions concerning forensic scientific evidence, (b) the relative influence attributed to DNA evidence compared to other forms of forensic identification evidence, and (c) the impact of cross-examination addressing the limitations of DNA testimony. In Studies 1 and 2, both undergraduate students and representative jurors rated DNA as the most accurate and persuasive type of evidence compared to other types of forensic evidence. This finding was consistent across samples of individuals with varied exposure to media coverage of scientific evidence. Experimental results further revealed the strong influence of DNA evidence in verdict decisions regardless of the type of crime or whether the evidence was incriminating or exculpatory. In Studies 2 and 3, DNA-based expert testimony demonstrated strong effects on juror decisionmaking even after cross-examination. These effects were mitigated to some extent in Study 3, however, by the interaction of the reliability of DNA evidence and the focus of cross-examination. The implications regarding the use of DNA and other scientific evidence for public policy and practice in legal decisions are discussed.