When new crime tech starts before the court, it starts as a technique that is backfilling or corraborating other evidence. So the air samples themselves would not be enough to convict, or be a primary source of evidence. But they can be used to verify and corraborate known accepted science and testimony. Such as the cadaver dog hits, the expert testimony of the initial LE investigators, who recorded their findings weeks before the tests, GA and CA and their excited utterances and independnt observations etc.
So while you cannot proclaim that the air samples prove there was a dead body in the car, you can use them to say that the findings of the new test were consistant with the statements to the smell made by CA, GA and the detective, and were expremely consistant with the observed responces of the certified "cadaver dogs".
