CSI Forensic Evidence Analysis

CBS’s CSI: Crime Scene Investigation exploded into popularity when it aired in 2000, opening doors for the creation of other similar criminal investigative television shows involving forensic evidence such as Cold Case, Criminal Minds, and Bones. Many of these CSI-type shows present a murder or crime solved within an hour-long episode using forensic evidence conceived by glamorized CSI personnel and sometimes fabricated methodologies and technologies that only exist on television. Despite just being shows, one wonders whether these popular shows have skewered public perceptions about forensic evidence in real court cases and have impacted the outcome of court verdicts. The CSI Effect, explained by Kim, et all, was named after the television show

CSI, and refers to jurors’ heightened expectations of being provided with forensic evidence in court proceedings and their increased reliance and value placement on such evidence in order to convict. The CSI Effect exists because CSI-type shows incorrectly portray the work of the forensic scientist by exaggerating the capabilities of collection of forensic evidence and oversimplification of the legal system to fit the one-hour episode, causing jurors to have unrealistic expectations of being provided with evidence in court cases; prosecutors then needed to alter how the they conduct court proceedings as to negate the jurors’ CSI bias, which then places an increased burden on the crime labs to process.
Jurors have adopted greater expectations of forensic evidence, after the popularity boom of T.V.’s CSI, due to jurors’ belief that they are more informed of capabilities of forensic evidence technologies through CSI-type shows. Kim, et all states that their study proved that “those who were exposed to the CSI dramas frequently had higher expectations about scientific evidence to be presented by the prosecutors, and their increased expectations lowered the willingness to convict defendants without scientific evidence of any kind.” Jurors overestimate real life Crime Scene Investigator’s evidence collection abilities due to exaggerated technologies on television that frequently finds evidence, and thus believe evidence is available to be presented in court. If forensic evidence is not provided or evidence is not provided in an abundant amount, the case would be dismissed or ruled as mistrial due to lack of sufficient evidence to convict the defendant. This is due to jurors’ increased expectations, while making it harder for prosecutors to convict because more forensic evidence is required to meet jurors’ increased standard of conviction of “beyond reasonable doubt.” Defense Attorney Joseph Levin explains that ‘“Jurors can ask questions of the judge while in deliberation, and they’re asking about what they see as missing evidence’” (qtd.

in Houck). Jurors who are influenced by the CSI Effect tend to have biased opinions because CSI shows are the basis for their knowledge. Rather than simply acknowledging courtroom expectations by deliberating based on only the facts presented in the courtroom, jurors are asking for more evidence than that is provided or necessary because jurors are comparing forensic evidence used to convict on television to real life cases. Thus, jurors are not impartial to the case because they have a prenotion of what information they require to convict, such as fingerprints in burglaries and blood analysis in murder cases. Smith et all reports that viewers of CSI-type shows and other similar shows have “inflated perceptions of accuracy, reliability, and usefulness of forensic evidence (but not ‘nonscientific’ evidence)” (qtd. in Stinson et all). As CSI-type shows emphasize the collection, analysis, and presentation of forensic evidence during court proceedings more so than other types of

evidence, so do jurors. In real life cases, other evidence besides forensic evidence is also provided, such as witness testimonies and an abundance of circumstantial evidence, which can be just as uniquely identifying as forensic evidence. If jurors are placing emphasis on forensic evidence and not considering other types of information provided, jurors may permit a guilty person to be acquitted or convict an innocent person. Jurors cannot just depend on forensic evidence because forensic evidence is susceptible to error and may be found untrustworthy because other evidence contradicts scientific evidence. Other times, jurors placed emphasis on forensic evidence, but do not understand the evidence’s purpose. ‘“In many cases across the nation real-life jurors who are fans of CSI have either caused hung juries or acquitted obviously guilty criminals, claiming the investigators failed to test evidence the way CSI does on television’” (qtd. in Cole and Dioso-Villa, “Investigating the ‘CSI’”). For example, a man was acquitted in a rape case, despite that the DNA from the saliva on her skin matched the suspect and that multiple witnesses gave testimonies, due to the jurors’ belief that the dirt found in the victim should have been tested to see if it matched the dirt at the crime scene (Cole and Dioso-Villa, “Should Judges Worry”). Jurors emphasize amounts of forensic evidence as key in determining a suspect’s conviction, rather than the purpose of the evidence.