CSI Files
Captain
The Early Show recently talked to CSI creator <font color=yellow>Anthony Zuiker</font> about the show's influence on real-life murder trials.
Since the premiere of CSI, real-life jurors have begun to demand more forensic evidence from prosecutors, a phenomena that has been termed the "CSI Effect". "The 'CSI Effect' is, in my opinion, the most amazing thing that has ever come out of the series," Zuiker told The Early Show. "For the first time in American history, you're not allowed to fool the jury anymore."
No other trial better bears witness to this than <font color=yellow>Robert Blake's</font>. Blake, who was accused of murdering his wife nearly three years ago, was acquitted of the charges just last week, despite the fact that the prosecutor introduced more than 70 eye witnesses. The jury claimed the lack of forensic evidence heavily influenced their decision. "They couldn't put the gun in his hand... There was no blood spatter. They had nothing," said <font color=yellow>Thomas Nicholson</font>, one of the jurors.
The CSI team is happy their show has caused people to be more aware of the judicial practices. Star <font color=yellow>Robert David Hall</font> (Dr. Al Robbins) knows it takes a little more than forensic evidence to solve a case, but he's glad CSI is educating the audience about crime scene investigation.
Some, however, see the "CSI Effect" in a more negative light, claiming it puts insatiable expectations in the jurors' heads. "[...] once you get the influence of CSI, what they start to expect is not only a lot of forensic evidence, but that this one missing piece would have told them the truth," said former prosecutor and CBS news consultant <font color=yellow>Wendy Murphy</font>. "That's just not reality. Most murder cases have a little forensic evidence, but it doesn't really tell the whole story."
Whether the "CSI Effect" benefits or hurts a murder trial remains a debate, going as far as causing the dismissal of potential jurors who admit they are fans of the show (news). But CBS News consultant <font color=yellow>Mickey Sherman</font> disagrees with the practice, claiming jurors are just, "a little more educated now, maybe too educated. If they believe the person committed the crime, forensics or not, they're gonna find him guilty."
Click here to read the original Early Show article, and head over to Elyse's to read Hall's reaction to the "CSI Effect".<center></center>
Since the premiere of CSI, real-life jurors have begun to demand more forensic evidence from prosecutors, a phenomena that has been termed the "CSI Effect". "The 'CSI Effect' is, in my opinion, the most amazing thing that has ever come out of the series," Zuiker told The Early Show. "For the first time in American history, you're not allowed to fool the jury anymore."
No other trial better bears witness to this than <font color=yellow>Robert Blake's</font>. Blake, who was accused of murdering his wife nearly three years ago, was acquitted of the charges just last week, despite the fact that the prosecutor introduced more than 70 eye witnesses. The jury claimed the lack of forensic evidence heavily influenced their decision. "They couldn't put the gun in his hand... There was no blood spatter. They had nothing," said <font color=yellow>Thomas Nicholson</font>, one of the jurors.
The CSI team is happy their show has caused people to be more aware of the judicial practices. Star <font color=yellow>Robert David Hall</font> (Dr. Al Robbins) knows it takes a little more than forensic evidence to solve a case, but he's glad CSI is educating the audience about crime scene investigation.
Some, however, see the "CSI Effect" in a more negative light, claiming it puts insatiable expectations in the jurors' heads. "[...] once you get the influence of CSI, what they start to expect is not only a lot of forensic evidence, but that this one missing piece would have told them the truth," said former prosecutor and CBS news consultant <font color=yellow>Wendy Murphy</font>. "That's just not reality. Most murder cases have a little forensic evidence, but it doesn't really tell the whole story."
Whether the "CSI Effect" benefits or hurts a murder trial remains a debate, going as far as causing the dismissal of potential jurors who admit they are fans of the show (news). But CBS News consultant <font color=yellow>Mickey Sherman</font> disagrees with the practice, claiming jurors are just, "a little more educated now, maybe too educated. If they believe the person committed the crime, forensics or not, they're gonna find him guilty."
Click here to read the original Early Show article, and head over to Elyse's to read Hall's reaction to the "CSI Effect".<center></center>