If you were a juror...

If you were a juror, which evidence of a crime would influence you more? DNA or eye witness testimony? Say the DNA said it was one person... but the defense found an eye witness who said it was someone else and the defendent said he was home alone.

Would you believe the person or the science?

Science. In fact there have been many studies that find eyewitnesses are the worst evidence there is. The mind is influenced so easily by suggestion - both within and without - that there is little credence to 'eyewitness' any more. I'm sure lawyers will elaborate on these studies (and case history) as necessary.

Shale wrote:Science. In fact there have been many studies that find eyewitnesses are the worst evidence there is. The mind is influenced so easily by suggestion - both within and without - that there is little credence to 'eyewitness' any more. I'm sure lawyers will elaborate on these studies (and case history) as necessary.

I think eyewitness testimony is among the least reliable. They even tested the theory some years back & aired the results. Someone ran in the room & people disagreed about everything from clothing to race. Gotta go with science on this.

Eyewitnesses are not the best way to go because everybody sees something differently and people will remember differently as well, especially if a lot of time goes by between when they give their statement and when it goes to trial.

Most people are not like me (I have photographic memory... I've freaked out many people when I told them where I remembered seeing them, even from the most casual circumstances). And while I don't think DNA is an exact science yet (in fact, I do not believe science is exact), I think I would lean towards that.

Science.

Definitely the DNA. I just watched a program about a guy who murdered his ex son-in-law and it was pretty clear he did it, but there was a witness that placed him at the defendant's sister's house, in another state, at the time of the murder. The guy was just a neighbor, not a friend. But wire taps had the defendant coaching his sister on what to say about him being at her place.

I agree with everyone else; DNA is the most conclusive evidence there is. You take into account eyewitness testimony, but hearsay can only go so far. If there's DNA, that overrides everything.