For your Initial Post, consider the following. It's possible that you could one day be asked to serve on a jury.Given the fact that testimony from so many trial witnesses (defendant, eyewitness, alibi, informant, expert, etc.) is potentially untrustworthy, (1) describewhat kind of evidence (or combination of evidence) you would need in order to find someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and (2) justify your response, addressing why you would want to see that evidence, and why other evidence would not be sufficient. Then, change your perspective, and (3) reflect on whether the evidence you indicated you would need for a guilty verdict is a reasonable expectation for the prosecution to present at trial. (Keep in mind that if you said "I need to DNA or I won't find anyone guilty," that means no one could be found guilty in a case where the DNA is unlikely to be left behind (e.g., arson, fraud) or where the perpetrator avoided leaving DNA evidence).

In your Reply, this is fairly open, but some things to consider are: do you agree with the evidence requirements suggested (why or why not)? did the explanations provided make sense to you (what was particularly strong or weak in their argument)? are there situations where you think the evidentiary standards should be different? As with the Initial Post, make sure your answers are informed by the readings and psychological theory.