No. The court's decision was what a non-expert jury of peers was convinced of by lawyers. The lawyers' jobs are not to help the jury reach the truth, but to do

No. The court's decision was what a non-expert jury of peers was convinced of by lawyers. The lawyers' jobs are not to help the jury reach the truth, but to do anything legal to win for their clients, including torturing both facts and the often arbitrary rules of courtroom procedure. There may have been evidence presented that originated with the scientific process, but no, the court's decision was not 'the product of science'.