I'm not sure where to post this, or exactly how relevant it is to the show franchise itself, but it definitely sounds like a major change for the criminology profession: NY Times --> Full article here --> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/26/us/26lab.html?hp Basically, the decision means that anyone who analyzed evidence would be required to testify at the trial for any piece of evidence that they worked with, or at least that's how I understood it. It would result in a lot more time spent by analysts on trials and travel (the latter especially for federal employees and analysts who work for larger states). I'd be curious to see whether TPTB would incorporate this into the show in any way. From the way the Times covered, it definitely sounds like a decision set to rock the world of real-life CSIs and criminologists.
This is probably because the defense attorneys should have the chance to ask questions about the chance of false results or chain of evidence or any other aspects to the tests. I've got a feeling this thread might be switched to the Forensic Science Forum of this board, since it doesn't have to do with any specific past CSI episodes but about forensics in general.
Interesting link! That said, I agree that Forensic Science might be a better place for this thread since it's about the real-life CSIs rather than a discussion about the franchise itself. I'll move it over there now.
Thanks Faylinn! That is interesting. I wonder if they will incorporate that into the shows now. I can see how Defense attorneys would like the opportunity to prove results wrong or if they were processed in the correct way.
I'm a bit confused. I thought the CSI shows already have shown the CSIs testifying about evidence they've processed. We've seen them in courts several times talking about evidence.