Having had a jury, there are way too many things wrong with that thought to know where to begin. Let's start with jury selection. If a venireman (that's someb

Having had a jury, there are way too many things wrong with that thought to know where to begin. Let's start with jury selection. If a venireman (that's somebody in the jury pool) has anything objectionable known about themselves to either side, one or both sides will strike them. This leaves juries with muppets (in the sense of people who will never themselves make the history books) and the occasional stealth. Juries aren't neutral to anything. The expert the state hires goes up and says, yup, DNA matches. Defendant probably doesn't get an expert even if he's certain he needs one. And that's only if the judge allows it, which is often not the case. Half of the jurors are already pissed off at the defendant because that's how people are- he decided to protest his innocence and now I have to miss a week of work for less than minimum wage. DNA unfortunately is all too often junk science, because in the instances where the forensic lab technician isn't adulterating the tests intentionally, they can be doing so unintentionally. The DNA you're not looking for can often get in the way. This is without Chimerism, and other recently discovered genetic oddities muddying things up further. One need only look at Milgram's experiment to know how most jury trials go.