Kinda the opposite, there are lots of cases where juries were swayed by apparently scientific or technical evidence that later turned out to be bunk. "Computer

Kinda the opposite, there are lots of cases where juries were swayed by apparently scientific or technical evidence that later turned out to be bunk. "Computer says so" is an incredibly powerful legal attack, second only to "expert says so". These routinely override passion and emotion, leading to innocent people pleading for their lives before a dispassionate jury sends them away on the strength of expert witness testimony alone. See the Post Office scandal in the UK for a terrible example of justice gone badly wrong, due entirely to juries allowing technical "evidence" (which turned out to be fraudulent) to overrule common sense everyday right-feelings. https://becarefulwhatyouwishfornickwallis.blogspot.com/2013/08/post-office-2nd-sight-report-into.html https://becarefulwhatyouwishfornickwallis.blogspot.com/2013/... legally this has come to mean that "machines do not make mistakes" ie if a mechanical device has done the same thing hundreds or thousands of times in exactly the same way, it is not a defence to say it must have started doing something differently. This idea was conceived well before anyone started programming computer software, and was meant to represent basic mechanical devices (say, a cash register), rather than the interlinked electronic eco-systems we depend on nowadays. Thirdly, there is a widespread public perception that electronic evidence is infallible, hence the readiness of juries to convict on computer records alone.