Television crime dramas, like “CSI: Crime Scene Investigation,” have an enduring popularity, but their impact has gone far beyond mere entertainment. They have, in a very real way, helped reshape the public’s perception of how criminal investigations work and what forensic science can do.
The “CSI Effect” is the term applied to the – often unrealistic – expectations that such television shows can create in the minds of jurors.
Jurors have come to see forensic evidence as foolproof
The television shows – whether pure fiction or dramatic reenactments – show forensic analysis as virtually omnipotent and always infallible, capable of solving some of the most puzzling legal mysteries. That’s not at all true. Forensic science, despite its value, has limitations. DNA analysis, fingerprinting and other techniques are subject to human error and can often yield inconclusive or questionable results.
This can make things difficult for the defense in several ways. First, jurors may not look as critically as they should at forensic experts testifying for the prosecution. They may assume that everything the expert says is automatically accurate.
Second, they may believe that the defense should – if the defendant is genuinely innocent – present high-tech forensic evidence to prove it. They don’t necessarily understand the constraints of a defendant’s budget and the very real way that restricts their abilities.
Finally, jurors who are inclined to put their faith heavily in forensics may ultimately ignore any other evidence that tends to throw reasonable doubt on a defendant’s guilt.
If you’ve been charged with a violent offense and forensic evidence is likely to be a part of your case, it’s important to make sure that your defense accounts for the CSI effect. A skillful defense can often chip away at the illusion of infallibility through careful cross-examination of experts put on by the prosecution and by educating the jurors about forensic limitations.
