Question

If you were a juror in a murder case, and the DNA, blood, fingerprints, or other scientific evidence conflicted with what witnesses said that they saw or heard….which would you be more likely to believe? Why?

Answer 1

Answer:

if I were juror in murder case, the I would conduct all the scientific evidence, and if it still conflicts with ALL the witnesses I would not believe the witnesses. but I still would not announce my decision. I would want more evidences and proofs to announce my decision because I just can't rely only on scientific evidence, (what if the person who murdered changed the fingerprints and other scientific evidence, you never know)