I totally get the concern about a later discovered hair.
The reason they start with the in-state lab would appear to be cost. Each outside testing has to be an approved expense as it is paid out of taxpayer money. The blood sample was too degraded for standard DNA testing, but they had to try that first. It turns out that it was too degraded for the advanced testing as well.
I don't think we have enough information yet to know why they didn't find the hair. Procedures in Hawaii across the board are often less thorough than on the mainland, so no amount of slop really surprises me at this point.
I do think that the defense will or would file a motion to suppress the DNA of the hair if they see any way to cast suspicion on its being found after it returned to them from the lab. If they do not try to suppress it, then the defense must accept its validity as far as how it was collected.
so far, they are objecting to it on the basis of late receipt of the lab testing only. Now is their chance to argue that the hair may have been planted, so let's see if they go that way when the hearing occurs.
