CSI Files
Captain
Thanks to CSI: Crime Scene Investigation and CSI: Miami juries are more aware than ever of just how much evidence can be at a crime scene, and this knowledge is factoring into their deliberations.
According to an article in USA Today, as many as 70\% of potential jurors may be fans of CSI, Miami or a similiar forensic show. Because of these shows, jurors have come to expect technical details and DNA evidence to be presented to them during the course of a trial.
<font color=yellow>Robert Hirschhorn</font>, a jury consultant, says this hasn't always been the case. "Talking about science in the courtroom used to be like talking about geometry—a real jury turnoff," he commented. "Now that there's this almost obsession with the [TV] shows, you can talk to jurors about [scientific evidence] and just see from the looks on their faces that they find it fascinating."
Jurors' interest in and reliance on detailed scientific evidence, which has been dubbed "The CSI Effect" by those in the legal profession, is something of a mixed bag. While many juries won't convict in the absense of crucial evidence, they often have unrealistic expectations about how much evidence is available.
"Jurors are going to have information, or what they think is information, in mind," prosecutor <font color=yellow>Paul Walsh</font> said. Juries have asked for DNA tests in cases that didn't require them, but have also helpfully pointed out cases in which a DNA test was needed.
However, science isn't infalliable, even if it appears that way in the CSI shows. "You never see a case where the sample is degraded or the lab work is faulty or the test results don't solve the crime," DNA specialist <font color=yellow>Dan Crane</font> noted. "These things happen all the time in the real world."
Even the producers of CSI admit they take liberties with the limits of science in the pursuit of a good story. CSI: Miami producer<font color=yellow>Elizabeth Devine</font> once said that if the show depicted accurately how long DNA testing took, it would take several episodes to catch one criminal.
To read the original article, please visit, USA Today.<center></center>
According to an article in USA Today, as many as 70\% of potential jurors may be fans of CSI, Miami or a similiar forensic show. Because of these shows, jurors have come to expect technical details and DNA evidence to be presented to them during the course of a trial.
<font color=yellow>Robert Hirschhorn</font>, a jury consultant, says this hasn't always been the case. "Talking about science in the courtroom used to be like talking about geometry—a real jury turnoff," he commented. "Now that there's this almost obsession with the [TV] shows, you can talk to jurors about [scientific evidence] and just see from the looks on their faces that they find it fascinating."
Jurors' interest in and reliance on detailed scientific evidence, which has been dubbed "The CSI Effect" by those in the legal profession, is something of a mixed bag. While many juries won't convict in the absense of crucial evidence, they often have unrealistic expectations about how much evidence is available.
"Jurors are going to have information, or what they think is information, in mind," prosecutor <font color=yellow>Paul Walsh</font> said. Juries have asked for DNA tests in cases that didn't require them, but have also helpfully pointed out cases in which a DNA test was needed.
However, science isn't infalliable, even if it appears that way in the CSI shows. "You never see a case where the sample is degraded or the lab work is faulty or the test results don't solve the crime," DNA specialist <font color=yellow>Dan Crane</font> noted. "These things happen all the time in the real world."
Even the producers of CSI admit they take liberties with the limits of science in the pursuit of a good story. CSI: Miami producer<font color=yellow>Elizabeth Devine</font> once said that if the show depicted accurately how long DNA testing took, it would take several episodes to catch one criminal.
To read the original article, please visit, USA Today.<center></center>