The CSI effect and its impact on criminal justice verdicts

Television and film script writers have gained from crime and courtroom proceedings for many years. The use of the courtroom as a drama channel has significantly changed in the recent years among media options. The use of the courtroom as the basic source of drama action among these media houses has increased and changed focus from sheer creative imagination to real life cases. Indeed, many courtroom dramas today are based on real life cases. There is an increasing thin line between reality and drama. TV shows such as American Justice, 48 hours Mystery and Dateline NBC present dramas that are based on real life cases, with heavy editing and incorporating narration for the dramatic effect, of the original details but the storyline is retained. Irrespective of the nature; whether the courtroom dramas are pure fiction or edited versions of the real, most courtroom dramas today make use of new science and technology to deal with crime incidents. Indeed, Crime Scene Investigation is touted as the most impressive TV show. Indeed, according to a rating done in 2006, forensic drama shows drew over 1000 million viewers (Cole & Dioso-Villa, 2007). This discussion seeks to establish the effect of CSI on criminal justice system. The paper reviews previous literature on the subject. Background
According to a survey that was recently conducted, most jurors today expect more forensic evidence in crime cases as a result of the TV program: Crime Scene Investigation. Indeed, many jurors also believe that CSI has made the conviction process all the more harder (Hughes & Magers, 2007). In the summary of the analysis of 318 magazine and newspaper articles focusing on the effects of CSI, up to 8.5% made reference to quotes associated with a judge. Justice Scalia is reported to have mentioned the TV in a view, Judge Emeritus of D.C CCA and co-chair of NRC committee for the improvement of forensic science and Judge Harry Edwards have all mentioned the phenomenon several times on separate occasions (Cole & Dioso-Villa, 2007; Shelton, Barak and Kim, 2011).

A state court judge, Donald Shelton, who is the Chief Judge of Washtenaw County Trial Court in the state of Michigan, is a member of a prominent team of experts conducting research on the CSI effect (Cole & Dioso-Villa, 2007). According to Allegheny County judge for common pleas, Judge J. Zottola, the expectations of jurors of criminal prosecution have been changed by the TV shows. Another judge says that jurors now expect crime scenes to be full of evidence. Michael Toomin of the Chicago Criminal Court points out that CSI effect can no longer be dismissed as a mere TV drama, the effect is out there. However, some Judicial experts such as Judge Lombardi of Prince George's County say that claims of CSI effect are myths (Cole & Dioso-Villa, 2007). One of the judges summarized by stating that some trials over the past several years have seen defendants take advantage of the CSI effect by questioning witnesses about tests that were not conducted and arguing in the closing arguments that failing to run such tests provides reasonable doubt. They are strategically taking advantage of a different set of proof threshold that some jurors come into the courtroom aware of in the recent days. One cannot ignore the effect of CSI. Although it doesn't mean that the court finds existence of CSI effect on its rulings, it points that the possibility of its effect cannot be wished away (State v. Cooke, 2007).

The above claims are serious. If they are true, they cast aspersion on the ability of the courts to dispense justice fairly. Judges are, therefore expected to take the lead to remedy the situation because they are the court administrators and producers of trial in the judicial system. Such measures may be grave and even controversial because they may challenge some valued and established practices of the system of trial by jury in the American Justice system. Judges may change these practices with utmost caution. The effect of CSI on the Criminal Justice System
Even though CSI is portrayed as a well documented phenomenon, there is little concrete evidence of the actual effect of CSI on the criminal justice system (Cole & Dioso-Villa, 2007). These accounts are based on comments associated with various officers of the judiciary. A review done on socio literature shows a different story. Scholars in the legal spheres characterize CSI effect as a speculation and add that the effect on defendants is more plausible as far as the claims are concerned; although it is not frequently mentioned by the media.

i. Anecdotes

The coverage of CSI by media is heavily dependent on anecdotes. The acquittal of Robert Blake in Baretta of murder charges, where Steve Cooley, the attorney for the defendant, referred to the jury as unbelievably stupid is the anecdote of the highest profile (Keller, 2005). In the drama, the prosecution present evidence based on motive and opportunity to commit the crime but there was little forensic evidence. In fact, Blake tested negative on gunshot residue. This flew in the face of the plaintiff's assertion that he, indeed, fired at and killed his wife. Several lover profile cases exist in which jurors acquitted defendants for lack of sufficient forensic evidence (Shelton, 2009; Imwinkelried, 2004). Such expressions by the media are inspired by interviews with jurors and prosecutors who were of the view that the acquittals were because of the juror's high expectation of evidence based on forensic science and TV reflections in programs such as CSI.

ii. Surveys of Legal Actors

Another strong evidence supporting the CSI effect is the surveys of the opinions of staffs in the judiciary. The surveys were guided by perceived effect of CSI and other forensic programs on the verdicts by the jury, trial strategy and even pretrial prep. The results of the survey show that the CSI effect is real and that it has affected the criminal trial process (Watkins, 2004; Kim, Barak & Shelton, 2009; Shelton et al., 2011). Yet, there is little evidence in the surveys to demonstrate the strong prosecutor effect; which happens to be what people think about when they refer to CSI effect. The questions in the surveys are largely aimed at unveiling the effects on legal actors other than jurors. When the surveys seek to establish the effect on jurors, they approach it indirectly. They ask legal players whether they think that jurors were influenced by CSI (Moriarty & Saks, 2005; Newhouse, 2005). Consequently, the measures are not accurately or properly focused on the effect of CSI on jurors. If jurors were targeted by the survey directly, it would help to measure the prosecutor's effect.

iii. Juror Surveys

To establish the existence or lack of CSI effect, potential and existing jurors were surveyed. In such studies, the decisions by the jury can be compared between the ones who watch CSI and similar forensic programs with the ones that don't (Cole & Dioso-Villa, 2007). In order to find out the CSI effect, Shelton surveyed 1027 jurors who had been called to serve a South East Michigan County (Shelton, 2009). The respondents were interviewed on their TV viewing habits of CSI and related dramas, and were provided with a range of crime case scenarios and charges. They were further asked about the type of evidence they would expect to be provided at the trials of such crimes and the verdict they would give if certain types of evidence were adduced by both sides. The results of the survey showed high expectation of forensic evidence by all respondents. Viewers of CSI had a higher expectation of more evidence of all types than non CSI viewers. Differences between viewers of CSI and those who don't were marginal and were contrary to the perceived strong prosecutor effect. The fact that respondents expected more forensic evidence did not necessarily translate to giving guilty verdicts. For instance, it was found that CSI viewers tended to find eye-witness testimony more useful when reaching verdicts in the absence of forensic evidence. The authors of the survey thus propose that the high expectation of forensic science evidence may not necessarily be a result of CSI experience but may be informed by the increased awareness by the society to make use of technology in resolving issues. They concluded that it is a general effect of tech on all of us.

iv. Psychological Experiments

Mock trials that make use of jury deliberations are another way of checking the effect of CSI. Even if college students do not form real jury pools, they provide an opportunity for controlled experiments by researchers. In a study conducted by Kimberlianne Podlas's (2007), 538 mock jurors were made o deliberate two crime incidents in which there was no need for forensic evidence. Podlas sought to measure the strong prosecutor effect by wrongful acquittals and "not guilty" for each case. There were no indications in her studies that jurors who viewed CSI acquitted cases that warranted convictions. She did not find any evidence that CSI viewers over-relied on forensic evidence to render verdicts.

v. Acquittal Rate Data

Even if the surveys would have found some evidence of the CSI effect on rendering of verdicts in criminal cases, one would still have needed to review the history and changes in rates of jury acquittals before confirming that, indeed, CSI has had an influence. The premise that jurors are acquitting defendants in cases that would have gone in the other direction if CSI did not exist is the basis of the strong prosecutor's effect. It would be expected that if the effect is real, then jury acquittals would be on the rise. Yet, evidence from federal courts records does not show anything of that nature. There is no discernible difference in jury verdicts since the onset of CSI (Cole & Dioso-Villa, 2007). Indeed, there is a slight decrease in acquittals; trend that dismisses the claim of strong prosecutor's effect. Conclusion
There is little evidence so far that CSI has had any effect on the rendering of justice in the criminal justice system. One wonders why, then, the phenomenon has received so much attention and threatens the public view of the court process. The plausible conclusion is that it is, indeed, a typical media phenomenon. It is a typical media panic that has been cited by numerous sociologists as an exaggeration of some perceived social concern. This is an interesting case since it is the media that has brought forth the problematic phenomenon. Should judiciary official worry about CSI effect? The judges should guard against the possibility of invoking CSI as a cover for bad practices. The judges that hold the view that CSI warrants changes in the judicial rules and procedures should take into consideration two aspects: the reported raising of juror expectation for more forensic evidence is in tune with tech advances in society. Changing the rules in response to the media today is a precedent for similar responses in the future. If judges think that verdicts can be influenced by television programs, then there is more to be concerned about beyond CSI.

References

Cole, Simon A. & Dioso-Villa, Rachel. (2007). CSI and Its Effects: Media, Juries, and the Burden of Proof, 41 NEW ENG. L. REV. 435, 435-69.

Hughes, Thomas. & Magers, Megan. (2007). The Perceived Impact of Crime Scene Investigation Shows on the Administration of Justice, 14 J. CRIM. JUST. & POP. CULT. 259

Imwinkelried, Edward J. (2004). "The Relative Priority That Should Be Assigned to Trial Stage DNA Issues," in Lazer, D. (ed.), DNA ANDTHECRIMINALJUSTICESYSTEM: THE TECHNOLOGY OF JUSTICE, 91,92-93.

Keller, Julie. (2005). D.A.: Blake Jury "Incredibly Stupid," E. Online. Retrieved from http://www.eonline.com/news/49519/d-a-blake-jury-incredibly-stupid on September 13, 2016

Kim, Young S., Barak, Gregg & Shelton, Donald E. (2009). Examining the CSI-Effect in the Cases of Circumstantial Evidence and Eyewitness Testimony: Multivariate and Path Analyses, J. CRIM JUST. 452.

Moriarty, J.C. & Saks, M.J. (2005). Forensic Science: Grand Goals, Tragic Flaws, and Judicial Gatekeeping, JUDGES'J., 16, 17.

Newhouse, M. (2005). Real-life investigators indict "CSI" for perjury, PITTSBURGH TRIB.-REV., Apr. 13.

Podlas, Kimberlianne. (2007). The "CSI Effect" and Other Forensic Fictions, LOY. L.A. ENT. L. REV. 87.

Shelton, Donald E., Barak, Gregg and Kim, Young S. (2011). Studying Juror Expectations for Scientific Evidence: A New Model for Looking at the CSI Myth. Court Review: The Journal of the American Judges Association

Shelton. Donald E. (2009). Twenty-First Century Forensic Science Challenges for Trial Judges in Criminal Cases: Where the "Polybutadiene" Meets the "Bitumen." Widener Law Journal Vol. 18 Iss. 2.

State v. Cooke, 914 A.2d 1078, 1088 (Del. Super. Ct. 2007).

Watkins, Michael J. (2004). Forensics in the Media: Have Attorneys Reacted to the Growing Popularity of Forensic Crime Dramas? Thesis, Florida State University.