One of the oldest and most reliable findings regarding human inference is that the order of evidence affects the final judgment. These order effects are non-Bayesian by nature and are difficult to explain by classical probability models. We use the empirical results of two jury decision-making experiments to compare two different models of human belief updating: the belief-adjustment model and the quantum inference model. We also provide evidence to suggest the belief-adjustment model has limited predictive power when accounting for tasks involving extreme evidence whereas the quantum inference model does not.