Over-reliance on confession has had a long history in the Chinese criminal justice system. Recent high-profile wrongful conviction cases have raised public awareness of the coercive and torturous methods used to extract confessions. Despite the return of Hong Kong to Chinese sovereignty, Hong Kong remains a common law jurisdiction and the most serious criminal offences are tried by a jury. The present study empirically examines the relative impact of DNA evidence, confession, eyewitness testimony, and victim testimony in a Hong Kong–Chinese mock juror sample. The results show that the participants placed greater value on DNA evidence than on confession, and placed the lowest value on testimonial evidence. It is argued that the situation of "one country, two cultures" remains strong: Whereas participants are still influenced by the Chinese criminal justice concept of confession, their judgment is still predominately influenced by the scientific evidence as commonly practiced in the West. Thus, no solid evidence has been found to confirm the emergence of mainlandization in Hong Kong’s criminal justice system.