Posted on 04/24/2005 8:44:04 PM PDT by CHARLITE
DO YOU watch CSI? It is a question heard in an increasing number of jury selection hearings across the US.
The hit television series Crime Scene Investigation, in which brilliant forensic scientists solve seemingly baffling cases each week in little more than 40 minutes, is changing the face of American justice as jurors apply the lessons of what they have seen on TV to real-life criminal trials.
A decade ago, the kind of physical and forensic evidence used in the OJ Simpson trial baffled many viewers. Today, educated by what they believe they have learned from TV, it is the least they expect.
Prosecutors fear that juries are now prone to demanding unreasonable levels of proof from physical and forensic evidence that is rarely as neat, tidy and conclusive as it appears to be on television.
The show’s adage, that "people lie, the evidence never does", has filtered into the popular consciousness, despite the often less than clear-cut evidence that can be gathered from crime scenes. On CSI, for instance, no fingerprint is ever less than perfect and all fabrics, including those as common as a white cotton T-shirt, can be traced to the perpetrator of the latest grisly murder to be featured on screen.
Max Houck, director of the Forensic Science Initiative at West Virginia University, said: "People see science as a juggernaut of infallible evidence because of the increased popularity of television shows like CSI. Television shows teach the public about forensic procedure and tests, but not when to apply them."
The Jerry Bruckheimer-produced series has been among the most popular programmes on American television in recent years.
The original series, set in Las Vegas and starring William Petersen as Gil Grissom, a pudgy, coolly rational and brilliant forensic scientist, has spawned derivative versions of the franchise in Miami, starring David Caruso, and New York, starring Gary Sinise.
More than 60 million Americans watch the shows each week, and there are a string of repeats on cable television.
Houk said: "Prosecutors tend to fear the ‘CSI effect’ on juries, because juries now have an unrealistic expectation of what the laboratory will do. They wonder why wasn’t everything tested, when in fact not everything needs to be tested."
But it is not only prosecutors who fear how juries will react. "Defence attorneys now worry about the CSI effect as well, because they think that the jurors come in and have this view of science as this juggernaut, this infallible objective method that is always right and spells doom for their client," said Houck, who presented a paper on the CSI effect at this year’s annual conference of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
The programme has also increased enrolment in forensics classes at universities across the country. In 1999, just four students took classes in forensic science at West Virginia University; last year that number leapt to 400, as it became one of the most popular programmes on campus.
In states such as California and Illinois, prosecutors have taken to producing "negative evidence" witnesses to remind jurors that it is not always possible to recover DNA and other pieces of physical evidence from a crime scene.
Prosecutors will often ask experts to explain the absence of fingerprints from a crime scene rather than risk the jury treating their absence as grounds for reasonable doubt.
In other cases, however, where the forensic evidence is sound and comparatively clear-cut, the show has made it easier for prosecutors to present detailed scientific evidence without fearing it will either flow over the jurors’ heads or bore them to distraction.
Just as CSI increases expectations that often outstrip reality, so too do the state-of-the-art labs featured on the series compare favourably with their often under-funded and over-stretched real-life counterparts, fostering the erroneous impression that forensic science is as swift a process as it is certain.
Even so, Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley argued last month that the raised expectations occasioned by the hit show were partly responsible for the acquittal of actor Robert Blake on charges of murdering his wife. CSI helped create "false expectations" said Cooley.
The foreman of the jury defended the decision to acquit the 71-year-old star of TV show Baretta, arguing that the physical evidence presented by the prosecution was "flimsy".
Jurors decided that the prosecution had failed "to put the gun in his [Blake’s] hand" and that neither Blake’s skin nor clothes were marked with a single particle of the residue that might have been expected had he been the man who fired the Second World War era pistol that was used to kill his wife.
Notwithstanding that, Cooley accused the jury of failing in its duty. "Quite frankly, based on my review of the evidence, he [Blake] is as guilty as sin. He is a miserable human being."
Sometimes the CSI effect can have disastrous consequences. In one recent Illinois rape case the prosecutor told the jury: "You’ve all seen CSI? Well, this is your CSI moment. We have DNA," as the District Attorney matched saliva found on the victim to the defendant who had denied touching the woman in question.
Despite that the jury acquitted because, jurors said, the prosecution should have produced more physical evidence.
"They said they knew from CSI that police could test for that sort of thing," said prosecutor Jodi Hoos. "We had his DNA. We had his denial. It’s ridiculous."
Although the series has increased awareness of and interest in forensic science, not everyone in the field is happy with the way the profession is portrayed on TV.
John Houde, a criminologist and author of Crime Lab: A Guide for Non-scientists told the American Bar Association: "CSI has as much to do with criminalistics as Baywatch has to do with being a lifeguard."
Dr. Klien was my zit not zot doctor when i was a teen
FWIW
FYI
CSI?
I figured it was more along the lines of a "Godfather" verdict.
Who is Debbie Rowe?
Many people don't understand the difference between fact and fiction, science and pseudoscience, etc., these days.
I almost worked for the FBI lab back in the 90s. Sure glad I didn't, though, with how things went downhill with it.
Michael's ex-wife.
Ah! Oh yeah, she's gonna sink his "Love Boat".
What a perv!
Patricia Cornwell novels also gave the layman a glimpse of forensic science as have many others. I wondered years ago reading about this is we were going to create super criminals. Apparently, according to this account, we are creating juries with increasing thresholds of reasonable doubt.
I love her books!
Notwithstanding that, Cooley accused the jury of failing in its duty. "Quite frankly, based on my review of the evidence, he [Blake] is as guilty as sin. He is a miserable human being."
Uh huh. Blame TV cuz you can't prove a case.
The problem with so many high profile murder cases is that the prosecution is stuck with smarmy characters as witnesses. People testifying for the prosecution are rarely pristine individuals. The men who testified that Blake had repeatedly solicited them to murder his wife had "baggage." Ditto for just about every one of the prosecution witnesses in the Michael Jackson case.
The defense team has a field day with each one, focusing on lies they've told in the past, or scams they've run. It is frustrating to watch these procedures.
Personally, if I'd been on the Blake jury, there would have been a hung jury, not an acquittal. Ditto (in advance) with the Jackson jury. If I were on it, there would be no way that Michael Jackson would walk.
Char
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.