408,852 views
3 votes
3 votes
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?

User Xtian Macedo
by
2.8k points

1 Answer

26 votes
26 votes

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)

User PurplePolyhedron
by
2.8k points