> that's what a jury is for. Determining matters-of-fact from presented evidence.

That’s a pretty shockingly huge amount of faith you’re putting in a system with well documented shortcomings and biases, especially in a capital case with a black defendant.

Also, it seems frankly absurd to claim that the absence of the subject’s DNA on the murder weapon isn’t material to the decision to convict . It’s surprisingly hard not to get DNA on things, and the prosecution’s case appears not to have painted the defendant as some sort of methodical dexter-type.

Nobody has claimed that we should rely solely on DNA tests - that’s an absurd straw man. I think it’s even more absurd to defend this sequence of events in a capital case.