CSI Effect - How the Show Has Affected America's Courtrooms

CBS's CSI shows have created a phenomenon among television viewers. The shows are able to give the average person an inside look into the world of forensics. The shows fascinate viewers with the science and technology used to solve crimes. Millions of viewers watch these shows each week and feel they know enough about forensics when they are tapped for jury duty. Prosecutors and defenders often find rough patches in trials because jurors have unrealistic expectations due to watching the shows.

Crime-based dramas have lead to a phenomenon known as the "CSI effect." The CSI effect is the unrealistic expectations of jurors when it comes to evidence in trials. Most jurors have found it hard to convict or acquit a suspect when physical evidence, directly tying the suspect to the crime, exists. Jurors want to see DNA, fingerprints, blood spatter, and other forensic evidence, without realizing these forms of evidence are not always present at a crime scene. In most cases, there will not be any forensic evidence available at the time of trial. Sometimes this is caused by crime lab backups or the suspect was very thorough in keeping the crime scene clean of anything which could point the finger at him or her.

Since these shows detail life inside crime labs, those uneducated about crime science often feel they know enough about what to expect when they become jurors. This is simply not the case. Yes, some of the tools and instruments the lab technicians use in the show are available in reality, a lot of the techniques and some instruments simply do not exist. There is no nose-sniffing tool which can detect fumes in the air and crime scene investigators would never make a mold of a wound out of plaster. These are just items the producers of the show added to sensationalize the show.

What do defense and prosecutors think of these shows? Defense attorneys find it hard to succeed in court, especially when there is a mountain of forensic evidence presented to the jury. Television does not show how humans can compromise the evidence, thus juries are unwilling to accept the fact that the findings were altered to favor the prosecution. The prosecutors believe the shows make their jobs harder. If there is a trial where the jury would expect to see a lot of forensic evidence and the evidence is not there, the jury sides with the defense. Regardless of which side is right, they both agree what the jurors see on television is definitely embedded into their minds. Jurors have a hard time distinguishing which parts of the shows are "real" and which parts have been sensationalized.

Since these shows have become so popular we have seen the effects seep into courts across the country. In one case, a prosecutor had brought in several expert witnesses to testify on the different forms of evidence and what they mean to the courts. This approach helped the jurors understand why some forensic evidence was not submitted to the court. In another case, a man was on trial for murder. He admitted he was at the crime scene at the time of the murder and had blood on his jacket. He turned the jacket over to the police, who never submitted the evidence for DNA. The jurors asked for a DNA test and the judge had decided television had introduced DNA tests to the jurors but had not let them know when they were used.

In 2003, Massachusetts prosecutors began to ask jurors about their television watching habits. Many states had already allowed prosecutors to ask jurors questions on the shows they enjoy. By questioning potential jurors, it makes it easier to find the best nonbiased jury for trial.

Federal researchers conducted a study in Wilmington, DE in 2003. The study involved various mock trials. There was one particular trial which dealt with very confusing DNA evidence. One of the jurors was having a hard time and stood up and stated "such problems never come up on CSI." The researchers had their answer: the shows have taught jurors to expect more than what the labs are capable of doing in the real world.

The CSI effect is very real in courtrooms across the country. People have raised the bar for the prosecutors and defense attorneys can exploit these expectations. The best way to combat the effects of crime-based shows in the courtroom is to provide education on why, how, and when forensic evidence is used.