I'm writing an article about the misuse of statistics in the courtroom. Of course one can not have this conversation without mentioning of the so-called "[Prosecutor's fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutor%27s_fallacy)". Most of the examples of this date back to the late-90s/early 2000s e.g Sally Clark, Angela Cannings etc.


The fallacy involves statistical reasoning in court cases. Basically, it is the error of assuming that the odds of a false positive are the odds of the defendant's guilt. So when the expert witness declares that the DNA test is 99.9% accurate, the prosecution tells the jury this means there is only 0.1% chance that the defendant is innocent.


My question is has anything actually been done to address the issue of prosecutors and unqualified expert witnesses giving misleading statistics in the courtroom? Or have lawyers more or less learned their lesson from these instances and are more careful about it now?


Moreover, does anyone know of any other general practises that have been implemented to help prevent faulty scientific analysis from being presented in court?


(I'm asking mainly about the English legal system, however please feel free to present anything relevant about the American system or any other).



Is the prosecutor's fallacy still an issue in cases today?