Forensics Journal - Stevenson University 2011

FORENSICS JOURNAL evidence does not perfectly mesh, jurors can be inclined to question the training, qualification, and job performance of a forensic scientist, investigator, or prosecutor. aspects of forensic science, such as the types of evidence collected at a crime scene, thereby helping criminals understand how to sanitize a crime scene and destroy evidence. Ray Peav, a Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department employee in the homicide unit stated, “Things like cigarette butts, coke cans, beer cans, a sweaty hat band or blood or semen, hairs, all those things that used to be left are no longer being left at crime scenes” (Rowlands 1). After visiting the Forensic Science Training Center at the University of Glamorgan in South Wales for an article about the CSI Effect, Maggie Koerth-Baker agreed with The Economist: To combat these misperceptions which impact credibility, many agencies react by changing procedures related to how evidence is collected, how much evidence is collected, and what tests are performed in the laboratory. “Investigators, crime scene technicians, and officers are finding themselves collecting and booking more evidence than they did in the past. This is happening because they have found that failing to do so is pointed to as incompetence or inefficiency” (Dutelle 114). Time, money, and resources are being wasted to ensure that investigators do not appear incompetent. Criminals watch television too and there is evidence they are also changing their behavior. Most of the techniques used in crime shows are, after all, at least grounded in truth. Bleach, which destroys DNA, is now more likely to be used by murderers to cover their tracks. The wearing of gloves is more common, as is the taping shut – rather than the DNA-laden licking – of envelopes. Investigators comb crime scenes ever more finely for new kinds of evidence, which is creating problems with the tracking and storage of evidence, so that even as the criminals leave fewer traces of themselves behind, a backlog of cold-case evidence is building up (Koerth-Baker). However, some researchers believe forensic science in television shows improves jurors’ ability to critically evaluate forensic evidence in court. Researchers Baskin and Sommers stated “some studies suggest that jurors do not have unrealistic expectations regarding the presentation of forensic evidence” (Baskin and Sommers 98). For example, Shelton surveyed study participants to determine “what potential jurors expected to see in terms of evidence” (Shelton 35). He found “those who watch CSI generally had higher expectations than non-CSI viewers” (Shelton 36), with respect to the availability, processing, and use of forensic evidence, but concluded that maybe CSI made them “better informed jurors” (Shelton 36). Researcher Nicholas Schweitzer also studied differences in how potential jurors who watched CSI and those who did not evaluated forensic evidence using a mock trial format with 48 university students acting as mock jurors. Study participants completed questionnaires to determine their views of the mock trial transcript and forensic evidence and were interviewed to determine their television crime drama watching habits. “Working with Michael Saks, an [Arizona State University] professor of law and psychology, Schweitzer found that respondents who watched CSI-type shows were more skeptical of the forensic hair analysis in the mock transcript than those who didn’t. They also claimed a greater understanding of forensic science and greater confidence in their verdicts.” (Boudreau, cf. Schweitzer (Jurimetrics http://www.public.asu. edu/~nschwei/archive/csieffect.pdf),1). Actions like these reduce the evidence available at a crime scene that can be collected, analyzed, and presented to the jurors. ACTIONS TO MITIGATE NEGATIVE ASPECTS OF THE CSI EFFECT Regardless of any potential negative impacts in the criminal justice system, crime dramas and docudramas are protected by freedom of speech. It is unlikely crime dramas will become more realistic. Therefore, all members of the criminal justice system must work to mitigate the negative aspects and reinforce the positive aspects of the CSI Effect. Aric Dutelle, a professor of forensic investigation, suggested jurisdictions educate citizens by incorporating “the area of forensic investigation into their Citizen Police Academies to inform and educate the public as to the realities of forensic science” (Dutelle 114). Dutelle also recommended hiring “educated and trained personnel with backgrounds in forensic investigation” (Dutelle 114) and “conducting frequent refresher training and taking a look at current case loads and determine the most appropriate training and technology necessary to efficiently and effectively work the cases” (Dutelle 114). David Michael Miranda, a forensic specialist for the Pasadena Police Department, believes “the plethora of forensic shows particularly CSI is positive for a lot of different reasons and there is a genuine need to understand what those reasons are and once we do that, it can be a positive force both inside and outside the profession” (“CSI”). Ideally, these shows help develop a balance to help future jurors learn to critically evaluate forensic evidence without applying unrealistically high expectations based on what they saw on television. Adding to the problems associated with jurors’ biases created by crime dramas, some individuals believe shows like CSI help criminals learn to successfully c

Forensics Journal - Stevenson University 2011 | Page 53