CSI Evidence Essay

According to Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary, the CSI Effect, also known as the CSI Infection, is a phenomenon reported by prosecutors who claim that television shows based on scientific crime solving have made actual jurors reluctant to vote to convict when forensic evidence neither necessary nor available. CSI and several other shows in the “forensic crime genre” have been television’s most popular shows for over ten years. These shows mostly depict law enforcement using methods to solve crimes that are not available to them in real life. As a result, viewers have unrealistic expectations of law enforcement and the justice system. Now, this perspective of how law enforcement should act and how a trial should take place would not be a

problem if it didn’t affect the outcomes trial. But, nonetheless, it does.
Since the introduction of these shows, prosecutors have noticed a change in juries. They are finding that juries are more likely to acquit or vote not guilty if they believe that there should be more evidence. More evidence is helpful, but this behavior is occurring in cases where evidence is neither necessary nor available. Currently, there is not enough evidence to support the influence of CSI shows on juries, but there is still the question of how the media affects the justice system. Several years of cultivation research shows that heavy television viewing seem to influence individuals’ views of social reality to resemble more of a television reality on issues such as sex roles, age, politics, violence, and the fear of violence. (Hayes-Smith, Levett, 2011) Some cultivation theorists include the CSI effect as part of the cultivation theory. Even though they believe that all television shows pose some influence on individuals, forensic shows have more influence than any other genre.
“The CSI Effect has led to jurors to have unreasonable demands for definite physical evidence at trial”. The vice president of the National District Attorney Association said, “Jurors now expect us to have a DNA test for just about every case. They expect us to have the most advanced technology possible, and they expect it to look like it does on television.” (Cole, 2007) The Casey Anthony trial is a prime example to understand the impact of the CSI Effect. Casey Anthony was placed on trial for the murder of her two-year-old daughter, Caylee Marie Anthony. Despite the circumstantial evidence, the prosecution was able to present a strong, ironclad case for at least one guilty verdict of the three offenses that Anthony was charged with. Anthony was found not guilty on all charges. Outrage quickly swarmed from the public. Soon after the news of the verdict was released, the media quickly jumped on the explanation that the CSI Effect influenced the jurors to acquit Anthony. To add fuel to fire, information came out that one of the jurors on the Anthony case indicated there was not enough physical evidence to give a guilty verdict.
There are two possibilities on how the CSI Effect influences juries.

One possibility is the pro-defense argument. (Hayes-Smith, Levett, 2001) The pro-defense argument states that if forensic evidence is absent, this absence may cause those jurors who watch crime dramas to be skeptical of testimony or other common trial evidence (Hayes-Smith, Levett, 2011). As a result, jurors will be more likely to not find the defendant guilty. Another possibility is the pro-prosecution argument. (Hayes-Smith, Levett, 2011) The pro-prosecution argument states that if forensic evidence is present, the jurors who watch crime dramas will focus solely on the forensic evidence and ignore other pieces of evidence. (Hayes-Smith, Levett, 2011) Therefore increasing the likelihood that the jurors will find the defendant

guilty.
As forensic shows became more popular, more stories began to come out about the CSI Effect.

It was not until 2005 when scholars decided to find out if it really did exist and what influence did it have on society. Several empirical studies, in the form of juror surveys and hypothetical trial scenarios, have attempted to determine the existence of a CSI effect. (Feeler, 2014) None has showed any definitive results. Kimberlianne Podlas published the first study in 2006 and 2007. Podlas used two hypothetical cases in which the only pieces of evidence were the stories from the defendant and the complainant. Podlas separated graduate students, college students, and adults into three groups. The group that voted not guilty was asked to list the factors that influenced their verdict. (Feeler, 2014) The group that requested more forensic evidence was separated into smaller groups: those who watched forensic shows and those who did not. The results of the survey showed that those who watched forensic shows were no more likely to vote not guilty than those who do not watch forensic

shows.
Despite the large number of surveys done to identify if the CSI Effect is real or not, the results were consistently similar. Scholars decided to conduct more surveys with a larger pool of variables. Donald Shelton created two surveys that lasted three years in two counties in Michigan. In the first survey, jurors were asked about their television habits and how often they watched forensic shows. They were also asked what types of evidence did they expect to see in trials and how likely were they to vote guilty based on the evidence presented to them. The second survey was the same as the first survey but with a larger pool. The results were similar to previous studies, however the results did not show any increase in demands for more evidence to convict. (Feeler, 2014)
The results raised several conclusions for Shelton’s research. First, all of the jurors had high expectations to be shown some type of scientific evidence. Some even expected it in every sample case that they were shown. Second, jurors who watch forensic shows also had high expectations for scientific evidence, except these expectations were more accurately associated to the type of case. (Feeler, 2014) Third, all jurors’ expect scientific evidence in rape cases and any type of case that relied on circumstantial evidence. Lastly, forensic crime viewers were not more likely to demand scientific evidence in order to give a guilty verdict.