The CSI Effect: How TV Crime Shows Shape Juror Expectations

Introduction: Art Imitates Life

Art imitates life, but the onslaught of television shows dealing with crime scene investigation has left jurors expecting life to imitate art. This phenomenon is described as the CSI Effect, named after the popular CBS television series. The purpose of this discussion is to explore the impact that the CSI Effect has had upon jurors and the judicial system, to investigate its consequences for prosecutors, and to examine some of the positive outcomes that have emerged as a result.

Defining the CSI Effect

According to an article in U.S. News, the TV series CSI: Crime Scene Investigation and other programs such as Law & Order — with their fast and often dramatic portrayal of solving crime through forensic evidence — have led jurors to believe that real-life crimes can be solved in the same fashion. The CSI Effect has also influenced the rate at which college students are enrolling in forensic science programs across the country (Prosecutors Feel the CSI Effect). According to CBS News, approximately 60 million Americans watch CSI each week, and millions more watch similar shows (Prosecutors Feel the CSI Effect). As one article put it, defining the effect is straightforward: "Having watched hour after hour of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation and other legal dramas, jurors nationwide are demanding forensic evidence and acquitting defendants when prosecutors don't deliver" (Treleven, 2005).

In many courtrooms across the nation, jurors are now routinely asked which television shows they watch. Treleven (2005) reports that two of the CSI programs are almost always in the top ten most watched. Judges have also reported that many jurors are extremely inquisitive about DNA evidence and fingerprints, and many concede that such inquisitiveness is a direct result of CSI and similar shows (Treleven, 2005).

Jurors have also formed stereotypes about what a trial should look like and how judges and lawyers should behave (Treleven, 2005). The research suggests that jurors are likely to be disappointed by the lack of drama in an actual trial and by the seemingly mundane performances of judges and lawyers — and whether that disappointment translates into skepticism toward a prosecution that lacks high-tech evidence "seems a rather tenuous set of assumptions" (Treleven, 2005). Because jurors are often so captivated by what they have seen on television, many judges now must remind them to separate fact from fiction when deciding a case (Treleven, 2005).

The justice system and law enforcement agencies have been forced to adjust to the impact of these shows on jurors' minds. An article entitled "Getting a Grip on the CSI Effect" asserts that the phenomenon has placed both entities under pressure to distinguish between the fictional scenarios depicted on television and the reality of actual cases (Botluk & Mitchell, 2005). Expert witnesses, in particular, face greater pressure to develop testimony that is compelling to jurors — testimony that must not only engage jurors but also convince them that the crime was thoroughly investigated (Botluk & Mitchell, 2005).

The U.S. News article explains that these television shows are most misleading in the speed with which they gather forensic evidence such as DNA and obtain quick results. In reality, forensics is seldom as fast or as certain as television suggests: "Too often this science is unproven, the analysis unsound, and the experts unreliable — many of the nation's crime labs, underfunded, undercertified and under attack, simply can't produce" (Morrison and Roane, 2005). John Marquis, district attorney of a city in Oregon, explains that he does not have access to same-day toxicology reports or same-day DNA testing that many jurors now expect (Prosecutors Feel the CSI Effect). This has been likened to the Perry Mason Effect: "In the '50s and '60s with Perry Mason, you expected the confession before the last commercial — with these CSI shows, people are conditioned to think there's always going to be evidence at a crime scene" (Rosinski, 2004).

When jurors are selected for a trial, many now expect concrete forensic evidence from the crime scene. However, in many cases such evidence does not exist or is very slight. When jurors do not receive such evidence from the prosecution, an acquittal often follows. Such was the case in a Baltimore murder trial in which there were two eyewitnesses but no DNA evidence (Prosecutors Feel the CSI Effect).

Much of the evidence presented on crime investigation shows is not the type of forensic evidence gathered in real life. For instance, in one episode of CSI the evidence included using a wound to recreate the shape of a knife (Morrison and Roane, 2005). Another show attempted to predict time of death based on the rate at which a piece of metal rusted. Most forensic experts agree that this type of evidence is not likely to occur in real cases. The authors also note that blood from the perpetrator is rarely found at a crime scene; the most common types of physical evidence are tool marks and fingerprints (Morrison and Roane, 2005).

Crime labs have progressed very little over the years. Many are still understaffed, and they often do not receive all relevant physical evidence from the crime scene — either because investigators do not know what they are looking for, or because they assume the case is strong enough without it. "A crime lab's bread and butter is testing drugs found at crime scenes, doing toxicology screens, and comparing fingerprints. DNA matches are way down the list, mainly because they're time-consuming and expensive" (Morrison and Roane, 2005).

Some of the technology depicted on such shows does not even exist, and the technology that does exist typically requires considerable time to analyze forensic data — results cannot be produced overnight, as these programs suggest. The creator of CSI, Anthony Zuiker, insists that the technology featured on the series is accurate and scientifically proven, arguing: "All of the science is accurate and we have real CSIs on staff that help us write the scripts and make sure everything is executed perfectly" (Prosecutors Feel the CSI Effect). However, many experts disagree. Some who have worked on the show and similar programs have quit because they believe the shows are detrimental to the judicial system and may negatively influence potential jurors (Botluk & Mitchell, 2005). Some experts also believe the shows may inadvertently teach criminals how to evade detection (Botluk & Mitchell, 2005).

This, too, can prove problematic: prosecutors will have a more difficult time finding perpetrators, and if they are found, there may be little evidence linking them to the crime scene. The absence of expected evidence will reinforce the belief among CSI-influenced jurors that the defendant is innocent, leading to acquittal. There is thus a cyclical, almost ironic quality to the CSI Effect.

Because jurors have been so influenced by these programs, they often struggle to understand why certain types of evidence have not been presented. As noted in the Washington Post: "It is not known how many cases have been affected by such crime shows in trial preparation, tactics, or verdicts. But there is a growing body of anecdotal evidence, and in more than a dozen interviews, prosecutors and defense lawyers in the Washington region cited specific cases in which they believe the demand for forensic evidence influenced the outcome — because jurors told them so after trial" (Stockwell, 2005). In the long run, jurors may have an increasingly difficult time distinguishing fact from fiction, inevitably changing the way police investigations and trials are conducted.

Pressure on Labs and Forensic Experts

Prosecutors are finding that juror expectations have become so elevated that the need to supply sophisticated forensic evidence has become overwhelming. This places a significant burden on the crime labs and forensic experts that prosecutors depend on. There is a serious and growing problem associated with forensic science ethics: many crime labs have been cited for sloppy procedures and erroneous evidence (Morrison and Roane, 2005). The fact that crime labs are not universally required to be accredited compounds the problem, since there are no standard procedures governing lab management. Under new laws, all federally funded crime labs were required to be accredited by 2006, but at the time of writing, 30% of federally funded labs had no accreditation (Morrison and Roane, 2005).

Many experts — including crime lab technicians, coroners, forensic anthropologists, and police chemists — have been fired for presenting erroneous evidence (Morrison and Roane, 2005). As one source notes: "It's hard to find anyone in law enforcement who can't recite a story of quackery on the stand or in the lab. Forensic practitioners say the popularity of the field may make things even worse, noting that new forensics-degree programs are cropping up all over the place, some turning out questionable candidates — because of the weight the analysis is now given, professional ethics and certification of labs has never been more important" (Morrison and Roane, 2005).

A related trend is the movement to hold expert witnesses civilly accountable for supplying erroneous information during a trial. Where experts were once granted absolute immunity, some jurisdictions now allow civil liability when an expert has been negligent (Botluk & Mitchell, 2005). In some cases, experts have falsified lab results or planted evidence, actions that call into question the integrity of the entire forensic system and the previous convictions that rested upon it (Botluk & Mitchell, 2005).

Many have concluded that addressing ethics and evidence-tampering requires both increased funding for crime labs and mandatory accreditation. Some experts have even argued that crime labs are the most neglected area of public safety in the nation, and that they should be accredited in much the same way that hospitals are. Even accredited labs, however, are not immune to error. Accredited crime labs are generally required to gauge their performance through declarative tests, but in most cases the lab workers are aware they are being tested. While labs typically pass these planned tests, forensic experts argue that they do little to evaluate everyday performance (Morrison and Roane, 2005). Variability in how evidence is sampled also means that forensic results cannot always be fully trusted — for instance, although DNA testing is the most accurate form of forensic science, there are often differences in the interpretation of DNA evidence (Morrison and Roane, 2005).

Television shows convey the impression that forensic techniques are exact, yet many tests are open to interpretation: "Everything from fingerprint identification to fiber analysis is now coming under fire. And rightfully so. The science is inexact, the experts are of no uniform opinion, and defense lawyers are increasingly skeptical — many of these techniques and theories have never been tested to ensure they are valid" (Morrison and Roane, 2005).

The pressure on prosecutors is compounded by an enormous backlog of untested evidence. According to a BBC News report, between 200,000 and 300,000 DNA samples in U.S. labs were waiting to be tested at the time of writing (Rincon, 2005). Families of victims are also affected: television portrays toxicology reports as available almost instantly, yet when families learn that such reports can actually take months to receive, they are understandably dissatisfied (Rincon, 2005).

Defense attorneys, meanwhile, exploit jurors' elevated expectations. A defense attorney may question why the prosecution failed to provide certain types of evidence — and while such questions are sometimes well-founded, they are often raised even when the evidence in question was never found or the relevant testing was unavailable (Toobin: "CSI" Makes Jurors More Demanding). According to Stockwell (2005), some defense attorneys use the absence of forensic evidence to create reasonable doubt in jurors' minds "even when there are eyewitness accounts, confessions, or other compelling evidence."

Overall, crime labs have been among the most severely affected institutions, bearing the pressure that prosecutors transfer from victim families and jurors. That pressure has, in some cases, led forensic professionals to falsify or plant evidence in order to secure a conviction — actions that threaten the integrity of the entire legal system and risk sending innocent people to prison. As one analysis noted, references to CSI by jurors may seem harmless, but they can become deeply damaging when the fiction presented on such shows is mistaken for fact.

Conclusion

This discussion examined the impact that the CSI Effect has had upon jurors and the judicial system. The research illuminated how the phenomenon affects jurors, crime labs, prosecutors, and the judicial system broadly, while also identifying some of its positive consequences for law enforcement.

The analysis found that shows such as CSI: Crime Scene Investigation have begun to influence the way jurors perceive actual court cases. Because viewers watch these crime dramas consistently, they have come to expect real cases to reflect the scenarios seen on television — including advanced forensic technology and rapid evidentiary results. The research further found that this expectation places profound pressure on prosecutors and crime labs. In many cases, the required evidence does not exist or the technology to verify it is unavailable. Defendants are being acquitted across the country when prosecutors fail to supply the forensic evidence that jurors have been conditioned to expect, even when eyewitnesses testify on behalf of the prosecution.

The pressure to produce such evidence has led some crime labs and forensic experts to falsify information, creating serious ethical misconduct that has called their credibility into question. In some jurisdictions, forensic experts can now be held civilly liable for erroneous testimony. The research also revealed that many publicly funded crime labs in the United States lack accreditation, meaning that procedures and analytical standards vary widely, giving rise to significant error. Accreditation is widely viewed as essential to resolving crime lab ethics problems, and federal law was set to require it of all government-funded labs by 2006.

At the same time, the CSI Effect has produced some positive outcomes: it has pushed law enforcement agencies to investigate crime scenes more thoroughly, and it has prompted many jurisdictions to increase funding for crime labs so they can hire qualified personnel and expand their technological capabilities. The research also highlights that forensic evidence presented at trial cannot always be fully trusted, as forensic experts often differ in how they interpret the same evidence — a fact that CSI-influenced jurors, who regard forensic science as infallible, may find difficult to accept.

Finally, the research explored how the legal system is beginning to cope with the CSI Effect's influence on jurors, particularly through the database created by the National Clearinghouse for Science, Technology and the Law, which seeks to provide reliable forensic information and reduce guesswork for all parties.

Overall, the CSI Effect exerts a profound influence on jurors and on the deliberation of trials in this country. It illustrates just how deeply life and art reflect one another, and how their interconnection can affect the course of a trial and potentially reshape the judicial system. The American public has grown accustomed to crime shows in which forensic evidence is presented quickly, cases are resolved neatly, and justice is served within the hour. In reality, crime labs are often underfunded and backlogged to the point that test results portrayed as instantaneous on television can take months to obtain.

If jurors are not made aware of the significant differences between fiction and fact, an increase in wrongful acquittals may be the result. Those working in crime labs and prosecutors' offices may continue to jeopardize their ethics and their careers in an effort to supply the dramatic evidence that jurors have come to demand. On the other hand, the CSI Effect has driven additional — and desperately needed — funding to forensic laboratories. On balance, the CSI Effect will likely continue to generate both negative and positive consequences for the criminal justice system in the years ahead.

Works Cited

Botluk, D., and B. Mitchell. "Getting a Grip on the 'CSI Effect': The National Clearinghouse for Science, Technology and the Law." 2005.

Morrison, D., and K. R. Roane. "The CSI Effect." U.S. News & World Report, 25 Apr. 2005.

"Prosecutors Feel the CSI Effect." CBS News, 10 Feb. 2005.

Rincon, P. "CSI Shows Give 'Unrealistic View.'" BBC News, 2005. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4284335.stm

Rosinski, J. "DAs: 'CSI Effect' Spoiling Jurors." Boston Herald, 12 Nov. 2004. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4154/is_20041112/ai_n12401464

Stockwell, J. "Defense, Prosecution Play to New CSI Savvy." Washington Post, 22 May 2005, p. A01.

"Toobin: 'CSI' Makes Jurors More Demanding." CNN. http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/05/05/otsc.toobin/

Treleven, E. "'The CSI Effect' on Real Juries." Wisconsin State Journal, 2005.