DNA results

In the study, Appleby & Kassin (2016) mention the Central Park Jogger Case in 1989. Two different juries prosecuted and convicted the five teenage boys even though the DNA testing excluded all of them. However, study 1 showed that participants relied on DNA evidence more than confessions and eyewitness identification. Keeping the Central Park Jogger Case in mind, why do you think some juries are skeptical about DNA results? What would you have done as a jury for this case?