alt Hacker NewsThey are trying to avoid a situation where you end up with one juror who watches a lot of CSI and insists that they need forensic evidence to convict, despite having a dozen eye-witnesses. If a juror cannot imagine a circumstance where the evidence could be beyond a reasonable doubt based on non-forensic evidence, then they aren't suitable to be a juror.
Replies
estearum • yesterday at 2:02 AM
Eye-witness evidence: so unreliable it's an active insult that people gesture towards it as one of the pinnacle forms of evidence.
➕ show 1 reply
SoftTalker • yesterday at 1:12 PM
Reminds me of the Norm Macdonald bit where he says he would not convict someone based on DNA evidence. The punch line is something like "I'm not a scientist, what do I know about DNA?"
➕ show 1 reply
For example, if you're sitting in your living room with a bunch of other people, many of whom know each other, and two people start fighting, you are all witnessing a crime and you can also all identify the two people fighting. It would be ridiculous to require DNA evidence in that situation.