Identical twins
 

Say one of a pair of identical twins commits a murder and the only evidence is DNA, like a hair or something.

Now they have identical DNA, the evidence proves that one of them must have done it, and naturally they both deny everything.

What should (or could) a jury do?

This same problem could apply to just about anything, paternity suits etc.

Even in identical twins, fingerprints are unique.

Motives would also aid in the investigations.

Alibis come into play as well.

Rarely do police rely just on DNA evidence, secondary to the fact that they have to catch the bad guy to test the DNA.

Yeah...I can't see that being too difficult of a case.
The whereabouts of the two twins, one could have been committing the murder while the other was at a bar with friends...
Little things that make the whole identical twins thing not a factor.

Going with what I think the original premise is, i.e. there is no other evidence, then both twins would be set free.

It is apart of our jurisprudence that it is better for a guilty man to go free than an innocent man to go to jail.

In this case, the principle applied would be "reasonable doubt".


But in reality, there is always other evidence to use.

Lebell I think you answered it best, ie "jurisprudence that it is better for a guilty man to go free than an innocent man to go to jail".

How about switching this to the claim a lady might make against the twins, having had both as lovers within the necessary period and seeking financial support from the responsible one.

Who pays child maintenance? I guess the state does as neither twin can be proved to be the father? Or is this a good case for application of Solomon's wisdom ie they share responsibility, which is obviously contrary to law but makes good sense to me.

they simply apply the evil twin test. check to see which side the scar is on ;)