Forensics Journal - Stevenson University 2011 | Page 54

STEVENSON UNIVERSITY

weight to a law enforcement officer’s testimony compared to other witnesses. A potential juror who shows a bias for or against law enforcement
officers may be dismissed. Potential jurors may also be dismissed if they
show other biases based on their work, legal, or general life experiences,
including those of family and close friends. It is common for judges to
ask prospective jurors if these experiences created biases they could not
put aside. The judge, prosecutor, and defense attorney should use the voir
dire process as an opportunity to explore any biases, positive or negative,
a potential juror may have acquired viewing crime dramas or docudramas
on television, although merely being a regular viewer should not exclude
someone from jury service.

the freedom of an innocent individual and undermines the credibility of
the criminal justice system. In recent years, many wrongful convictions
have been overturned based on DNA exonerations. According to The
Innocence Project, invalid and improper forensics played a role in 52% of
the overturned convictions, making it the second leading cause of wrongful convictions in the 225 cases in which The Innocence Project has been
involved (“UnValidated”).

Judges routinely remind jurors, before and during a trial, to consider
only evidence presented in the courtroom. Before jury deliberations start,
judges also provide detailed instructions to the jury regarding the applicable laws in the case. In cases involving forensic evidence, judges should
explain that television crime shows are not a reliable standard by which to
judge evidence or witnesses and direct jurors not to compare evidence or
proceedings to what they have seen in these shows.

Therefore, there is a clear benefit to having better informed jurors to
prevent incorrect acquittals and wrongful convictions. In one case, the
forensic investigator testified the defendant’s blood type matched blood at
the crime scene, but failed to testify the blood also would match approximately two/thirds of all men in the general population (“UnValidated”).
Knowing how common the blood type was might have given the jury a
different perspective regarding the significance of the blood type match
for the defendant. This is one example where scientific evidence needed
the proper context with accurate circumstantial evidence. If just one
juror had the background to question the context in which the scientific
evidence was presented, a wrongful conviction may have been prevented.

The actions below have the potential to mitigate the negative aspects of
the CSI Effect by:

CONCLUSION

• Ensuring forensic scientists and investigators are properly
trained, and that they understand and adhere to standards
of scientific and investigatory procedures to reduce the
chance of error.

• Ensuring lawyers understand the strengths and limita-
ions of forensic evidence to enable accurate explanations
to the jury.

• Improving the knowledge and understanding of the
strengths and limitations of forensic evidence in the
general public.

• Screening potential jurors to exclude those with biases
from jury service and reminding jurors of their responsibil-
ity not to let outside influences impact their deliberations.

Overall, the impact of the CSI Effect on forensic science, and how jurors
view forensic science, has been a mix of positive and negative. Fact-based
crime docudramas, such as Cold Case Files, The FBI Files, and The New
Detectives, realistically portray the strengths and limitations of forensic science and how investigations are actually conducted, which helps educate
viewers. Fictional crime dramas, such as Bones, Castle, Cold Case, Law
and Order and CSI, have mixed results, but the negative impacts generally outweigh the positive impacts. The negative is that crime dramas can
create unrealistic expectations for jurors that prejudice their ability to correctly evaluate evidence and witnesses, but the positive is that these shows
may educate jurors to be better able to evaluate evidence.
When a jury is either less inclined, or more inclined, to convict a defendant because they are comparing court room evidence and proceedings to
a crime drama, the integrity of the criminal justice system is undermined.
Neither a conviction nor acquittal is inherently positive or negative. What
is negative is when the CSI Effect influences a jury to render a poorly reasoned, incorrect verdict; what is positive is when it helps the jury render a
well reasoned and correct verdict. Understanding and mitigating the CSI
Effect in the court room protects the credibility of our criminal justice
system and improves public safety.

Typically, the concern over the CSI Effect is in the context of preventing
the acquittal of a guilty defendant. However, the risk of a jury incorrectly acquitting a guilty defendant thus releasing a criminal back into
society is not the only potential negative impact of the CSI Effect. The
risk of a wrongful conviction is just as significant because it takes away

52