Do prosecutors ever bring up the CSI factor? Was it mentioned to the jury in this case?
I don't think it was brought up and there's a reason: juries tend to perceive that kind of argumentation as a concession by the prosecution that their evidence is weak.
It's something that is tailor-made for the defense to jump all over.
I have heard it brought up ONCE in all the years I watched trials, and I don’t even remember what case it was, but basically the prosecution, in closing arguments went on about how what they see on TV regarding the 100% smoking gun isn’t reality.
Do prosecutors ever bring up the CSI factor? Was it mentioned to the jury in this case?
The CSI Effect is not a negative thing - prosecutors hate it because it forces them to actually present some compelling, objective evidence. For far too long, juries have relied on superstitions to arrive at verdicts rather than objective evidence.
It can sting the defense as well, though, as physical evidence like DNA can be seen as utterly damning even though it might not be relevant at all to the case.