Forensics Journal - Stevenson University 2011 | Page 52

STEVENSON UNIVERSITY

on a team of trained investigators and scientists with many different skills
who are professionals working in accordance with established procedures
and recognized standards. These differences may explain why researchers
have reached different conclusions when studying the CSI Effect.

Jeffrey Heinrick discussed the case of Richard Ramirez, also known as
the Night Stalker, in which “forensic scientists spent two years carefully
analyzing and interpreting the evidence” (Heinrick 60).
Crime dramas also portray inaccurately how instruments and technology are used in real forensic laboratories. Dean Gialamas, Director of a
California crime laboratory, stated that “the gadgetry in crime dramas is
very close to what they have in an actual crime laboratory, but the major
difference is the application of how some of the technology is used”
(Lovgren 2). For example, DNA and fingerprint evidence cannot be
processed as rapidly as depicted on television.

Viewers of crime dramas may or may not realize how much poetic license
these shows take, leading the viewer to very different opinions about the
role forensic science plays in criminal investigations, including how much
evidence can physically be collected from a crime scene, what tests should
be conducted, and how the findings should be presented in the court
room. These viewer-turned-juror opinions may be a positive influence,
i.e., help them evaluate evidence more critically, or a negative influence,
i.e., lead them to doubt established science and qualified witnesses.

A delay may also occur because crime laboratories handle numerous cases
simultaneously. Stefan Lovgren explained the “workload is so severe that
forensic scientists may work two dozen cases at the same time” (Lovgren
2); whereas investigators in crime dramas are only assigned one or two
cases. Researcher Jeffrey Heinrick also stated “crime labs are already
backed up to full capacity, often waiting months, or even years to provide
tangible evidence” (Heinrick 60).

The article entitled “The CSI Effect” discussed Dr. Robberts’ 2008 study
which revealed “62% of defense lawyers and 69% of judges agreed that
jurors had unrealistic expectations of forensic evidence” as a result of
television crime dramas (“The CSI Effect”). Maggie Koerth-Baker quoted
the Economist newspaper, which described the CSI Effect as “that unfortunate legal train wreck that is the result of jury pools being simultaneously over-informed, under-informed and misinformed about forensic
investigation science by prime-time cop shows” (Koerth-Baker).

Jurors may also believe more physical evidence should have been collected, tested, and presented. Jurors often expect to see more forensic
evidence (such as DNA, fingerprints, and blood spatter) than was available or the prosecutor deemed necessary. According to Evan Durnal,
“shows such as CSI put forth a perception that there is an ample amount
of evidence left behind at every crime scene, as well as it being simple
for the scientist to find” (Durnal 5). An actual crime scene often “does
not have physical evidence” or as much evidence present at the scene as
portrayed on television (Dutelle 113). “Jurors now demand expensive
and often unnecessary DNA tests, handwriting analyses, gunshot residue
testing, and other procedures that are not pertinent to the case” (Heinrick
59). “Prosecutors in the United States are now spending much more time
explaining to juries why certain kinds of evidence are not relevant” (“The
CSI Effect”).

Unrealistic jury expectations can undermine the credibility of everyone
associated with a case, including the forensic scientist, investigator,
prosecutor, and defense attorney. A juror who believes solving real crimes
is as simple and straightforward as it appears in crime dramas may end
up questioning the competence of the forensic scientist and investigator
because they think solving the case took too long, more evidence should
have been found, more tests should have been performed, and test results
should be more definitive. A forensic scientist’s credibility when testifying about laboratory procedures and test results can be undermined by a
juror who does not believe these professionals are doing their job correctly
based on what the juror saw in a crime drama. Similar concerns can affect
prosecutors and defense attorneys, resulting in changes as to how they
present or refute the evidence. Crime laboratories and other agencies have
also “increased their efforts,” as well as “spent money to acquire modern
technology and training that produces reliable results” (Dutelle 114).
These types of actions have been taken because crime laboratories “feel
the need to improve their forensic capabilities” despite the reality that the
areas in which they are making the improvements are used infrequently
(Dutelle 114).

Lack of physical evidence has resulted in acquittals despite other strong
evidence. In the Robert Blake murder trial, Heinrick observed that,
“physical evidence was lacking, but the witness testimony and the odd
behavior of Mr. Blake himself was damning....[D]ue to a lack of gunshot
residue and blood on his clothes, the jury voted to acquit Robert Blake”
(Heinrick 59).
Prosecutors and defense attorneys find it hard to explain to juries the
differences between crime investigations on TV and in real life and
“…find themselves at pains to explain that one of television’s fictional
devices—an unequivocal match between a trace of a substance found at
a crime scene…whether it be fingerprints, DNA or some other kind of
evidence—is indeed generally just fiction” (“The CSI Effect”). In a crime
drama, the forensic evidence is “always nearly correct and the detective is
never wrong” (Dutelle 113). In crime dramas, there is a surfeit of circumstantial and direct evidence that neatly fits together to tell a perfect story
of the crime, which does not always happen in real investigations. When

Crime dramas imply collecting and testing physical evidence is much
faster and simpler than the reality. Jurors may not realize there are legitimate reasons why a case may ta