Does response 2 answer the question 2.Would your answer change if the other man's DNA matched that found at the scene? Would your answer change if the other man's DNA matched that found at the scene? Explain your discussion statements My answer would change because the presence of Reyes DNA suggests that the convictions of the five teens were wrongful. The lack of DNA evidence connecting them to the crime scene combined with Reyes confession and DNA match indicated they shouldn't have been convicted for this crime. This case highlights the importance of thorough and unbiased investigations as it serves a reminder of the risks with relying on confessions without supporting evidence. Also the necessity of continually reviewing cases when new evidence emerges since matching DNA would indicate a flaw in the original investigation or prosecution. It would show that the investigation failed to identify the true perpetrator and that the evidence pointing to Reyes was either overlooked or mishandled. This case also serves as a precedent for how we should handle cases going forward, highlighting the crucial role of DNA evidence in proving guilt and the need for rigorous forensic standards in criminal cases