I very much agree with this idea. Just the possibility of peer review should curtail some of the bogus pseudo-science that can contribute to wrongful convictions.
This is a “how to do it” from Law Professor David L. Faigman at Hastings of UCBerkeley. He shows an extensive review on where the US courts are on this subject and why they are not always reliable. He has some interesting proposals on “gatekeepers” and experts’ testimony.
“Properly done, peer review nearly always involves some level of anonymous evaluation by scientists actively engaged in similar research. If the law could access a similar system of independent evaluation to assess the methods and principles underlying expert testimony, it would produce a host of benefits.”