The CSI Effect

[lawrocket 3]

There have been a number of stories coming out since the Blake trial about the "CSI Effect." This is the theory that television shows such as CSI, The Forensic Files, and other forensic crime programs are being watched by the general population, who then use those shows to see, "What kind of evidence would I like to see?"

Typically, these television investigators solve the crimes through science and definitive studies. Grissom on CSI also has seemingly unlimited access to lab techniques and systems.

Unfortunately, CSI is fiction, and while it has scientific merit, CSI lacks the pragmatism of crime labs. Several months ago, I read that there is a backlog of over 300,000 DNA samples to be tested.

Defense attorneys have grown wise to this. On the basis of television shows, the failure of prosecutors to provide certain evidence is being inferred by juries to show reasonable doubt. For example, the jurors in the Blake case wanted more conclusive evidence of gunshot residue on Blake.

Said one juror, "I just expeceted to see so much more." She was referring to evidence. Blake's attorney, George Schwartzbach, said he purposely asked jurors whether they watched those types of shows during questioning.

Whether it was dispositive of the jury, I do not know. But prosecutors are having a harder time now...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[tcnelson 1]

that's very interesting and not a far stretch as far as i'm concerned.

i've noted before that the analyses that the hollywood scientists perform in one day often take much, much longer and, many times, spectroscopic or chromatography analyses are not cut and dry like the shows portray. they are fun to watch, but if someone doesn't have any background in instrumental analysis, i can see where false impressions can be set.

"Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch
NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329

[tigra 0]

I don't think its a BAD thing if police and prosecutors have to work harder to prove their case. When someone gets aquitted on a murder charge, it usually means there is a killer free- if the guy who was aquitted was innocent, the actual killer is still out there and the trail has gone cold.

I agree that shows like CSI glorify the scientific aspect of crime solving, I also think most people realize its fiction. But, there have also been significant advances in crime solving technology. DNA and blood evidence played a big part in a trials long before CSI hit the airwaves. Its really a matter of art imitiating life and not the other way around. But, yes, people are viewing the scientific evidence differently.

In the Blake case, a very credible expert witness testified that the gunshot residue on Blake was consistent with handling a gun, but not firing a gun, right? The fact that he handled his own gun- which was NOT the murder weapon- was never disputed. I think that did a lot of damage to the prosecution's case, along with the fact that THEIR witnesses (the former stuntmen Blake allegedly tried to hire to kill his wife) were not so credible.

Just my thoughts......

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Whether it was dispositive of the jury, I do not know. But prosecutors are having a harder time now...

While I fully support prosecutors in their endeavors, the burden must rest with them, and it must be tough. Look at the Jackson trial, based on what I'm hearing and reading the main prosecutorial witness has been caught in a lie. Yes, Jackson's a freak to many and weird to just about everyone, but if the state is going to destroy a man, they'd better have every "i" dotted and every "t" crossed.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Whether it was dispositive of the jury, I do not know. But prosecutors are having a harder time now...

While I fully support prosecutors in their endeavors, the burden must rest with them, and it must be tough. Look at the Jackson trial, based on what I'm hearing and reading the main prosecutorial witness has been caught in a lie. Yes, Jackson's a freak to many and weird to just about everyone, but if the state is going to destroy a man, they'd better have every "i" dotted and every "t" crossed.

If prosecutors had been held to a higher standard, maybe Illinois would not have so much egg on its face concerning the remarkable number of innocents that have ended up on Death Row here.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Zenister 0]

this subject is actually being taught in many criminal investigation courses..in many cases the 'unreality' of TV leads potential jurors (who often seem to be made up of the lowest common denominator) to unrealistic expectations about what can really be done by modern forensics as well as within the budget limitations and time constraints of local jurisdictions..

personally i get a really good laugh out of the so called 'image enhancement' capabilities displayed in nearly every TV show where camera/video footage is used as key evidence...

however given the standard of 'beyond reasonable doubt' prosecutors SHOULD have an uphill fight to deny life and liberty to anyone accused of a crime.

the flip side of this is the focus on CSI techniques and forensic evidence also educates real criminals as to what, where, why, how they could conceivable be caught... this makes the intelligent criminal that much more difficult to catch as well...

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[SpeedRacer 1]

fortunately most criminals aren't very smart.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Kennedy 0]

I worked with the Firearms Examination Unit in PG County, MD (as an intern).

Mentioning C-S-I in the lab was verbotten, because that show sent my boss in to coniption fits. People think every crime scene is covered in evidence that anyone with half a brain can find. In reality? They're covered in dirt, and that's generally about it. The worst is when the damned jurors expect every case to be so blatantly obvious. They expect a perfect ballistics match (no such thing, it's always the opinion of the examiner, like a polygraph). They epect GSR on shooter and victim (GSR is eaily wiped, washed, or worn off & GSR on victims only happens at certain distances). They expect shell casings (not always left behind, easily mangled beyond recognition). They actually expect an FEU tech to be able to identify caliber of a through and through by looking at a wound (do I really need to say it?).

Jurors, yes, those twelve not qualified to get out of jury duty, are definitely affected by CSI et alia. For some reason, people now think every lab test known to man is available and can be done by one man for no cost. They also seem to think real crime labs only work three cases at a time, or less.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[miked10270 0]

Quote

fortunately most criminals aren't very smart.

... And most defence lawyers ARE!

That's why "Billy-Bob" & "Wayne" sit VErY quiet in their (if neccessary rented) smart suits. As far as humanly possible they don't open their mouths (lest the jury see missing front teeth), and they sure as hell speak as little as possible.

Part of what an effective defence agent does is draw the jury's atention to him - intelligent, wealthy, smart, engaging, etc... Almost so that they try the defence attorney & not the accused.

Then of course there is "The energetic defence"! Ask the prosecution witness questions they can't answer & suggest that their investigation has been a lot less than exhaustive (& in this the "CSI Effect" helps tremendously).

There doesn't actually HAVE to be a reasonable doubt, What the defence has to do is introduce a doubt which sounds reasonable to the jury... And as I said before, the median jury consists of 12 people too dumb to think up an excuse or look on days sitting in a courtroom as fun!!?

At the heart of this is the basic problem of our "Adversarial" justice system which places winning above truth.

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

fortunately most criminals aren't very smart.

Just remember, you're basing that on what equates to the "failed" criminals...

the ones who got caught!!

That's like surveying all the stockmarketeers who aren't rich (may or may not have been convicted).

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[lummy 4]

and on a side note:

Britney Spears wants to go to college to become a crime scene technician. Her reasoning? She watches CSI and think it looks "damned cool"

I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1

[TPO 0]

Woo hoo! I’m loving these forensically-related posts! (I have to apologise for the fact that I can’t add much to the sky-diving posts, as a seriously inexperienced jumper – but hey, we all gotta start somewhere, right?! )

As a forensic scientist myself, I have to say, I am totally torn when it comes to programmes about forensics. As much as I love anything to do with forensics, I hate over-exposure just as equally – there’s nothing like having knowledge about a certain subject – only to watch the media etc get it wrong! As I’m sure you’ll all agree! (Casing point: watching Bridget Jones 2 with my sky-diving fella!) I also find CSI et al tremendously amusing. Some of the cases featured, are actually based on those that have happened, but I doubt that everything was solved within an hour! The time it takes them to get a result, is anything short of unbelievable – and as Joe Public is watching, (and could then end up on jury duty) I’m not surprised there is a belief that every case can be solved. And as Zenister alluded to – I’m also very concerned that the public have a deeper insight into how crimes are solved, and that they may, start to take more precautions (there are of course, other schools of thought associated with that theory). Mind you, there’s still a great number of Burglar Bill’s out there who aren’t wearing gloves!

However, the situation here in the UK, is that each police force has a budget that they can spend on their cases each year. It might come as no greet shock to learn that forensic work can come at a pretty high rate! But sadly, forensics is fallible. And this is what I think is pretty worrying, that the concept of the ‘forensic magic wand’ will solve all your troubles. We can only work with what evidence is recognised and duly recovered: we can only work with what is there. All the fancy techniques in the world, aren’t gonna help ya, if the material is simply not there. (Casing point two: Stephen Hilder. Yep, I got my views on that one: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because something is not there, doesn’t mean that something never happened and you cannot make a conclusive statement about a particular hypothesis. True forensic science is about testing alternative theories too, not just the one you [or others] want to believe and you have to demonstrate that you have exhausted all the possibilities. Even if you are hired by the Prosecution, and you discover something the Ol’ Bill aren’t gonna like, you have to disclose it.) It’s not merely about people working harder to catch criminals, if there were unlimited funds, techniques, people and time, there may well be a higher rate of solved crimes. But as I said, it’s irrelevant if there’s nothing to be worked on in the first place.

Ooh, and while I’m here – here’s another point for us to debate – the jury rules here have changed, and us forensic-types can now be called for jury duty! What d’ya make of that? Is that worse than watching forensic programmes?! We’re gonna be even more critical, or lenient – or expectant, depending on how you look at it! And then there’s the issue of competition between different forensic providers…oh dear. Answers on a post-card please…

[USNLawdog 0]

The CSI effect has a really crappy effect for the beat cops as well. I'm not even close to forensic scientist level. Hell I can't even stand to study it there is so much technical info in there. Yet I love how some people want me to fingerprint their lockers because someone took their CD or something like that. Most people will never understand how much work and time will go into doing simple fingerprinting or how difficult it is to actually find and lift a full print. Not to mention how easily it can be messed up and your 1 good print suddenly doesn't count anymore. Not to mention those people that freak when something comes up missing when they left it sitting out in plain sight in a place where over 400 people have access to. "Sure I'll take this head on, who's your primary suspect? You don't have one, wow. That'll make this a little more difficult, I'm gonna go start arranging to fingerprint the entire command so we can find out who stole your 50 cent CD." Personally I'm just waiting for someone to ask me face to face why I can't process their *insert stupid crime scene here* like the guys on CSI. Hell if I had 1/2 the budget that the guys in CSI had I would never have to go steal someone else's pens/sharpie markers/ masking tape or printer paper ever again and how great would that be?

"I've taken the liberty of drafting your confession, you will be given a fair trial and then taken out back and shot."

[Kennedy 0]

You want to talk about budget?

Let's talk about how their "invstigators" have unlimited time to spend on useless clues.

I saw an episode today in the dentist's office where they were clipping clipped tree branches for comparison because the branches had been clipped by someone without permission and it went to motive for murder.

ps - yeah, woudn't it be nice if the only prints at the scene were the perp's and they were always full, clear prints?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Gralala 0]

Quote

Part of what an effective defence agent does is draw the jury's atention to him - intelligent, wealthy, smart, engaging, etc... Almost so that they try the defence attorney & not the accused.

This can work against them though.. Just last spring I sat on civil lawsuit case involving a local car dealership screwing over a soldier (guess how we ruled)... But the dealership's attorney came across so arrogant and smug I truly think it worked against the dealership. Would rather do criminal jury trial then a civil any day.. Criminal is cut and dried, civil is wide open for opinion and interpretation.

"Life is either a daring adventure or nothing at all." -- Helen Keller

[USNLawdog 0]

Oh the joys of CSI. I must say though I do watch the show and enjoy it for the drama and alot of the scenerio's that come up. It's a good show and I can see how it's been so popular.

Now cops that is the one I love to watch. Granted the officers screw up alot and half the time the camera is pointing in the wrong direction. But just the look on the perps face as 3 officers are on top of him with a foot/knee in the back of his neck and those really nice pierless braclets being hooked up brings a smile to my face. The comments after a chase are classic too, like "why are you running?" "cause the PO-lease is chasin' me!" HAHA gotta love it

"I've taken the liberty of drafting your confession, you will be given a fair trial and then taken out back and shot."