The C.S.I. Effect on Juries

We have all watched or are familiar with the television serial CSI.  It stands for Crime Scene Investigation.  In that show, forensic details, blood, DNA, gun shot residue, and other ‘clues’ are read by the CSI team to learn how the person really died and narrow the suspects.

The revelations in this show have made the average citizen more cognizant of such evidence, and has, in a rather embarrassing way, raised the expectations of jurors.

People expect a lot more forensic evidence to be presented in court, and presented quickly.

In reality actual forensic processing takes a long time,  days or weeks maybe even months.  And there is no guarantee that the evidence collected will be of value.

Jurors and the victims have these high expectations, and where there is no such forensic evidence, convictions are much less.

In America police and district attorneys have criticized CSI show for giving members of the public an “inaccurate perception of how police solve crimes”.

This is discarded by the public which assumes that if the Police did their jobs properly there would be a lot of evidence.

Although annoying to police and prosecutors that juries are a bit more aware and demanding then previously, it can only be a good thing to have an alert critical jury, not a rubber stamp.

Finding or not finding forensic evidence has to matter.

In America there has been a recognition of a lot of innocent people convicted.   Now that DNA evidence is available,  it can rule out the ‘I Saw’, which has been proven to be least reliable.    Many people think they see someone that they didn’t, confuse one person with another, and the accused is forced to prove his innocence, not that the Prosecution must prove his guilt.

It can only move justice ahead to have a jury aware of forensic evidence, its value, and be uncertain to convict without it.