Culture

The CSI Effect

by Beth Pirro, SUNY Cortland, May 7, 2007

Printer-friendly version

It can be argued that media, and specifically television has become a substantial part of American culture. Every night millions tune in to watch their favorite programs on television and contribute to the growth of the media’s presence in everyday life. Are you a fan of the show “CSI?” What is it that draws you to this type of show? A new phenomenon that has been generated from television and is catching people’s attention across the nation is an effect that has come to be known as “the CSI effect.” This phenomenon is being defined by many as “a term coined by prosecutors and the mass media to describe the influence crime dramas like “CSI: Crime Scene Investigation” have on jurors (Tyler 2006).” Following this new idea comes the controversy over whether or not the effect really exists or the idea is just a media tactic to grab the attention of the public. However, there are many who believe that the CSI effect is real, and that it is affecting the legal process today. Are you one of those? The CSI has affected both sides of the justice system; the defense, which has been positively aided by the CSI effect, and the prosecution where the effects have been negative.

“CSI: Crime Scene Investigation” has been deemed “the Nation’s most popular TV program…with more than 50 million people regularly watching CBS’s three “CSI” series (CNN 2005).” The popular show features plots about murder, which bring in crime scene investigators to solve the case and deem someone responsible for the crime. At the root of solving cases on CSI is the science of forensics. The crime scene investigators use forensic science such as fingerprinting and DNA to positively match a perpetrator to a crime. While one author of the show, Richard Catalani admits that “CSI tends to focus of the most interesting and novel forensic techniques, and not on more realistic, tedious, labor-intensive searches, when no one finds the needle in the haystack (Catalani 2006), the show has altered the expectations of the criminal justice system and poses an influence on all those involved in the process.

The influence of the CSI effect is controversial. While there exist those who believe that the show ‘CSI’ has not provoked any changes in the justice system today and that the effect is simply the media‘s attempt to create a frenzy, there are those who contrarily argue CSI has indeed “permeated American Law (Deutsch 2006).”
Many of those whom argue that the CSI effect is fiction claim that there is a lack of evidence supporting that the CSI effect is real. One author argues that “to argue that "C.S.I." and similar shows are actually raising the number of acquittals is a staggering claim, and the remarkable thing is that, speaking forensically, there is not a shred of evidence to back it up. There is a robust field of research on jury decision-making but no study finding any "C.S.I. effect (Tyler 2006)."

However, this claim can be suppressed by the overwhelming evidence that the CSI is real, and in fact is affecting the Justice System today. Numerous studies have concluded that the CSI effect does exist and that changes are occurring within the justice system to address the issue within the court rooms today. To begin discussing the existence of the effect, it is important to note the effect that the CSI effect is having on two key actors within the justice system: the prosecutors and the defense attorneys.

Prosecutors, who represent the ‘People’ of the state, are one side of the justice system who have felt the results of the CSI effect. Prosecutors are juggling with the issue of the “false expectation of plentiful scientific evidence creating a bias in the jury (Tyler 2006).” The CSI effect has resulted in a greater demand and expectation of the prosecution to present sound evidence that the defendant on trial is without a doubt, guilty. More and more juries are expecting forensic evidence to be used, and are withholding convictions if the forensics are not present. However, “real prosecutors offices are constrained by their limited resources (Thomas 2006)” and cannot use topnotch forensics in every case before them. This high level of expectation from jurors has resulted in prosecutors being confronted with a new dilemma; “they must either incur the high costs of conducting additional forensic tests--adding to an already large backlog and exacerbating existing resource shortages--or ignore these possible effects and bear the risk of losing additional cases (Loeffler 2006). Since it isn’t feasible in most instances to incur high costs in order to satisfy jurors, prosecutors have begun to take other routes to avoid the risk of losing a case due to the CSI effect.

Prosecutors have realized that they can take preemptive steps to make sure that justice is served despite the demand for more evidence, particularly forensics resulting from the CSI effect. Prosecutors are given a chance at trial to directly address the jury during both opening and closing statements. It has become more and more prevalent today that prosecutors are including statements while addressing the jury to make sure that the CSI effect is not affecting the jury on their panel and that the jurors do not have an unreasonable expectation resulting from shows such as CSI. To do this, prosecutors are using statements such as “to properly analyze a sample of DNA can cost as much as $100,000. You’re not going to be using DNA analysis in every burglary (Goehner, et al, 2006)” to make sure that the jurors expectations are not beyond reason and their case is not affected because of the lack of forensic evidence. Conclusively, prosecutors are negatively affected by the “CSI” effect due to the greater demand placed upon them by jurors to meet expectations and have thus, been forced to alter their techniques. Prosecutors however, are not the only ones being affected by the CSI effect; defense attorneys are also feeling the effects.

However, defense attorneys unlike the prosecution, are embracing this idea and are using the effect to their advantage. Defense attorneys are tinkering with their tactics to embrace the CSI effect to alter the jury’s perception of the evidence presented to them by the prosecution. The idea that there isn’t enough evidence to find the defendant guilty that is portrayed through the ideals behind CSI have helped defense attorneys to be successful in winning numerous cases where the prosecution didn’t supply objective, physical evidence. Jurors today are looking “for high tech, indisputable evidence before they will convict (Deutsch 2006)” and without it; the defense has a good chance of victory. Newspaper articles have depicted numerous cases where the defendant has been found guilty and have blamed the conviction on a lack of evidence presented by the prosecutor. Keith Dayton, Public Defender of Cortland County has questioned the idea of CSI effect on jurors and has conclusively found that the effect does exist.

A recent trial in Cortland County has convinced Dayton that the CSI effect does in fact exist and is prevalent in the justice system today. A case that was pretty clear cut, where a young boy was accusing his father of sexual abuse, had a delivery from the jury of a not guilty verdict. While the case contains numerous amounts of detail and facts, the case can be summed up in a few lines. A fourteen year old boy accused his father of sexual abuse, claiming that his father forced him to watch pornographic images on the computer as well as participate in acts that endangered the welfare of the child such as touching the father’s intimate parts. While numerous aspects make up the case, a jury of nine women and three men surprisingly found the defendant not guilty. In response to this verdict, Dayton’s explanation was the lack of evidence that the prosecution presented. Dayton believed that the jury was looking for sound evidence; evidence of the computer that the child testified had pornography on it that the father made him watch, evidence that the child had the father’s DNA in his body, and so forth. This belief was confirmed after a discussion took place with a juror following the trial. The juror claimed that a significant amount of the jurors were asking questions such as “why didn’t the police confiscate the computer” and so forth and believed that there wasn’t enough evidence to believe that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Dayton strongly agrees that the jury today has taken on a far more demanding stance in regards to finding a defendant guilty. In the eyes of the defense, this phenomenon has helped them win cases with the greater demand falling on the prosecution to prove the case.

An article presented in the ‘Yale Law Journal Pocket Part’ titled “The CSI Effect: Fact or Fiction” further supports the claim that the CSI effect not only exists, but is prevalent in the justice system today. Andrew P. Thomas, author of his article, presents evidence of a study that was completed within his office. Thomas, who is the chief prosecutor for the fourth most populous county in the United States, Maricopa County, compiled evidence within his office that suggests that the TV hit “CSI” has altered the legal field. According to Thomas, “almost eight out of ten Maricopa county prosecutors believe that jurors are disappointed in the lack of forensic evidence presented at trial (Thomas 2006).” The prosecutors within Thomas’s county frequently converse with jurors following verdicts of cases that are presented before them and from this Thomas has concluded that “in 72 percent of cases, prosecutors suspect that jurors who watch shows like CSI claim a level of expertise during jury deliberations that sways other jurors who do not watch those shows (Thomas 2006).” This conclusion drawn by Maricopa prosecutors follows the general belief of prosecutors in reference to the CSI effect. Prosecutors, including those of Maricopa County have begun to alter their methods of presenting evidence and claims through their opening and closing arguments to make sure that justice is being served and the jurors are fair and correct in their assessment of evidence being presented to them. According to Thomas, prosecutors are not the only ones recognizing the CSI effect and its potential for altering the justice system; judges too have recognized the effect and have begun to make changes. “More judges actively acknowledge the existence of the CSI effect and take steps during voir dire to prevent biased jurors from improperly influencing the jury (Thomas 2006).” Steps during voir dire include informing the jurors that they should not use outside standards such as that which is presented on television shows such as CSI to fairly and justly convict or acquit a suspect.

Many argue that the CSI effect has had a negative effect upon the justice system and has ultimately hindered justice being served. However, despite the new demands upon the prosecution and the leeway that the defense has been given as a result of the effect, it can be positively looked at in another light. Richard Catalani, a former crime scene analyst who is also one of the writers for the show CSI, argues that it has not tampered with the process of justice but rather aided in the fairness of the courts. Catalani argues that there are both upsides and downsides to this idea of a CSI effect, however; Catalani believes that the upsides outweigh the down. Juries have a better understanding now of forensic science. “As a result they are better at assessing expert witnesses and evaluating evidence in light of the tests that could have been done. Taking a person’s life or liberty requires complete explanations in light of those circumstances (Catalani 2006).” Catalani’s argument claims that justice will rightfully be served with a more informed and educated jury and the greater demand that the juries place upon the prosecution to prove someone innocent should not be looked at negatively but rather positively. “In a society where most decipher the person on the stand to be guilty, the CSI effect returns the attention to “exonerating the innocent (Catalani 2006).” Catalani has stated that he is proud to be associated with a phenomenon that puts a higher demand on the jury to justly find a defendant guilty of a crime with real evidence, rather than on a stereotype or bias belief that the defendant is already guilty; “CSI” emphasizes a return to ‘innocent until proven guilty.’

Works Cited

Catalani, Richard. A CSI Writer Defends the CSI Effect, YALE L.J. (THE POCKET PART),
Feb. 2006, www.thepocketpart.org.

Deutsch, Linda. "TV's Effect on Real Courtrooms." CBS News. 17 Jan. 2006. 09 Nov.
2006 www.cbsnews.com.

Goehner, Amy, Lina Lofaro, and Kate Novack. "Where CSI Meets Real Law and Order."
TIME. 08 Nov. 2004. 09 Nov. 2006 www.time.com.

Loeffler, Charles. "CSI" and the Criminal Justice System." The New Republic Online. 06
July 2006. 06 Dec. 2006 www.tnr.com.

"The Real CSI." CNN. 16 May 2005. 08 Nov. 2006
www.cnn.com.

Thomas, Andrew P. The CSI Effect: Fact or Fiction, 115 YALE L.J. POCKET PART 70
(2006), www.thepocketpart.org.

Tyler, Tom R. Is the CSI Effect Good Science?, YALE L.J. (THE POCKET PART), Feb.
2006, www.thepocketpart.org.

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://neovox.cortland.edu/mt/mt-tb.cgi/492

your thoughts?