may arise with respect to any forensic evidence. The potential for contamination may present an open field for eross-examination or may be addressed through testimony of defense experts at trial, as is true of other forensic evidence. State v. Cunningham, 197 Or.App. 264, 105 P.3d 929, 932 (2005) (quoting State v. Lyons, 324 Or. 256, 924 P.2d 802, 813 (1996)). There may, however, be instances when forensic evidence, including DNA evidence, is so unreliable that it should be excluded. Connell, 2012 WL 222926, at *9 (stating "[the evidence may be found so tainted that it is totally unreliable and, therefore, must be excluded[,}" but despite discrepancy in dates of obtaining DNA swab sample, it would have been admitted at trial); Armstead v. State, 342 Md. 38, 673 A.2d 221, 233 (App.1996) (<HOLDING>); State v. Hill, 257 Kan. 774, 895 P.2d 1238,
holding that a trial judge has discretion to exclude evidence of pending charges and that where the defendant was given a full opportunity outside the presence of the jury to develop a foundation for bias but failed to do so the trial judge did not abuse its discretion holding that the trial judge retains the discretion to exclude dna evidence if errors in the laboratory procedures render it so unreliable that it would not be helpful to the trier of fact but that trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting that evidence holding it was not an abuse of discretion to exclude testimony holding trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting highly probative and relevant evidence of other crimes holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting gangrelated evidence