stephenkatsea
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2008
- Messages
- 8,584
- Reaction score
- 12,813
Seemed like this was the first major trial with DNA evidence. The jury, not too surprisingly, did not understand it or its significance. Prosecuting attorney Marsha Clark, and others, spent hours explaining the DNA process. It appeared to be not well understood. Very bland, scientific evidence. I've heard it said, less DNA evidence than that would lead to a slam dunk prosecution today. Maybe? But, you'd still need a jury who understands.