The CSI effect
The CSI effect or crime scene investigation effect refers to the idea that the use of forensic evidence in popular TV shows has painted a distorted view on the capability and reliability of science.
Jurors and the CSI effect
The CSI effect can have negative effects on the outcome of a case, especially when it affects jurors' expectations:
1. It's harder to find jurors - Some states allow lawyers to dismiss jury members based on the TV shows they watch.
2. It's straining already tight budgets - Investigators might run tests that are otherwise unnecessary just to show the jury expected forensic evidence.
3. It's harder to prosecute defendants - Strong evidence is not available in every case, which does not meet the jurors' expectations and will make it harder to prosecute defendants.
4. It's wasting time in court - Defense teams spend more time presenting and explaining evidence to ensure that the jurors' expectations and understandings are clear.
The reality of the CSI effect
The CSI effect has been portrayed in several cases:
1. State v. Cooke: inconclusive or exculpatory evidence was presented in courts only to address the jurors' expectations of a thorough investigation. https://www.apa.org/monitor/jun07/jn
2. State v. Amanda Knox: defense attorneys would take advantage of the CSI effect as the jury demands forensic evidence. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/will-convicted-sex-murderer-amanda-knox-benefit-from-the-csi-effect/
3. State v. Elizabeth Holmes: jurors dismissed from the case to avoid the CSI effect.
https://www.law.com/therecorder/2021/09/07/the-new-csi-effect-takes-center-stage-in-the-criminal-fraud-trial-of-elizabeth-holmes/
And many more!
Evidence of the CSI effect
A study was conducted by Honorable Donald E. Shelton, Gregg Barak, and Young Kim to examine if the CSI effect is real. They surveyed 1027 jurors in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The survey included questions about the jurors' expectations as to what evidence is presented in court and their verdict decision in relation to the evidence presented in different cases. Findings showed that:
1. 46% of jurors expected to see some kind of forensic evidence in every criminal case.
2. 36% of jurors expected to see fingerprint evidence in every criminal case.
3. 32% of jurors expected to see ballistics evidence in every criminal case.
4. 22% of jurors expected to see DNA evidence in every criminal case.
As for the evidence's effect on the outcome of the case, results were inconsistent. Further research is needed to determine whether convictions by jurors are affected by the CSI effect.
https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/csi-effect-does-it-really-exist
It's not all bad
Despite the CSI effect having negative consequences on jurors' expectations in court, it also has some positive effects:
1. Jurors are more knowledgeable than before - Jurors show better legal knowledge and know which type of evidence is relevant.
2. Increased interest in the criminal justice field - Crime shows raise interest and awareness on the legal, medical and investigative processes.