Quote:
Originally Posted by ken0042
You are correct- however I would say the prosecution maybe spent too much time on the science. The jury was bored to tears as they went on and on for hours. (Or was it even days?)
|
Maybe. The network did spend a lot of time explaining DNA to the audience too though, so it obviously was a fairly new thing in trials.
I can't really say if the prosecution spent too much time on explaining the science or not. I could say that they spent too much time on it compared to other parts of their case. And we would probably agree on that. They probably did that because they believed that the DNA should make the case a slam dunk (and of course weren't adequately prepared in other areas). And in many cases it is. The defense did their job though and were able to poke enough holes in that, and the case surrounding it.
However, I am fairly certain that I remember one of the jurors saying years after that she wasn't sold on DNA evidence at that time.