Scientific thinking about the reliability of DNA evidence may be more squarely on the side of the prosecution in the O.J. Simpsontrial than the defense might have anticipated, says a UC Davis lawscholar. Several leading scientists in the debate over DNA typing -- previously at odds with each other -- have agreed that it is accurate, paving the way for its admission in court, says Edward J. Imwinkelried, who teaches law and is co-author of "Scientific Evidence," the second edition of which was published in 1993. Furthermore, the National Research Council, affiliated with the National Academy of Sciences, is likely to issue a new report this year that may soften its earlier statement attacking the way laboratories compute the probability of a random match in DNA genetic markers. "The prosecution will be able to argue that things have changed since 1992, and that they ought to be able to admit such evidence in 1995," despite the earlier concerns in the scientific community over DNA evidence in court, Imwinkelried says. In November 1994, in People vs. Soto, a California appellate court adopted that argument and upheld the admission of DNA evidence over the defense's objection, Imwinkelried notes.