Reality and fiction have begun to blur with crime magazine television shows such as 48 Hours Mystery and American Justice. These programs portray actual cases, but only after extreme and lengthy editing of the content and incorporating a narration voice over for dramatic effect. Other shows that are even more popular that are helping the media to blur the fine line between reality and fiction, even further, are the forensic dramas like: CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, Cold Case and Bones. These shows however, are not reality and create what is commonly known as “the CSI effect” and in my opinion have caused jurors to wrongly acquit guilty offenders when no scientific evidence has been presented to the jury by the prosecutors. 


The CSI effect is a phenomenon brought about by popular television shows such as: CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, Cold Case and Bones. and other forensic shows that are raising crime victims' and jury members' real-world expectations of the field of forensic science and type of forensic evidence that is presented by the prosecution. Much of these concerns come from the writers of forensic science television glamorizing the field, overstating the accuracy of forensic techniques, and exaggerating the abilities of forensic science. The CSI effect seems to skew public perceptions of real-world forensic science, as well as the behavior of criminal justice system actors; this is of particular concern in the courtroom setting, where many prosecutors feel pressured to deliver more forensic evidence, in order to convince the jury that the defendant is guilty. 


For example, 48 Hours Mystery filmed for months to capture all pretrial hearings as well as the 2-week trial on a case for one of their episodes. The program, however, was ultimately edited to a 1-hour episode that suggested the crime remained a "mystery" not with the jury's guilty verdict. Why? Because people like a mystery and like to make their own conclusion more than they would like it to be decided for them. The most popular courtroom dramas, whether actual, edited, or purely fictional, mostly focus on the use of new science and technology in solving crimes. CSI: Crime Scene Investigation is one of these popular forensic shows. In fact, it has been called the most popular television show in the world. Not only is CSI: Crime Scene Investigation so popular that it has spawned other versions that dominate the traditional television ratings, it has also prompted similar forensic dramas, such as Cold Case, Bones, and Numb3rs. According to one 2010 weekly Nielsen rating:

-30 million people watched CSI on one night.

-70 million watched at least one of the three CSI shows on in a week.

-40 million watched two other forensic dramas, Without a Trace and Cold Case.

Those ratings translated into this fact: five of the top 10 television programs that week were about scientific evidence in criminal cases. Together, they amassed more than 100 million viewers. So what is viewing these forensic shows doing to jurors? Two criminology professors decided to find out the answer to this question. 
 Gregg Barak, Ph.D., and Young Kim, Ph.D., criminology professors at Eastern Michigan University surveyed 1,000 jurors before their participation in the trial process.

These prospective jurors were questioned regarding their individual expectations and demands for scientific evidence and what programs they tend to watch on television. Their ultimate goal was to determine if there was any empirical evidence behind the commonly held beliefs that juror expectations for forensic evidence are linked to watching law-related television shows. The professors sent out these questionnaires to 1,000 randomly summoned jurors in Ann Arbor, Michigan. They asked the prospective jurors about their television program habits, including the programs they watched, how often, and how close to reality they believed the programs were. 


The survey asked questions about seven types of cases: criminal cases, murder or attempted murder, physical assault of any kind, rape or other criminal sexual conduct breaking and entering, any theft case and any crime involving a gun. They then asked what types of evidence the prospective jurors expected to see: eyewitness testimony from the alleged victim, eyewitness testimony from at least one other witness, circumstantial evidence, scientific evidence of some kind, DNA evidence, fingerprint evidence, and ballistics or other firearms laboratory evidence. After that part of the survey was completed, the survey participants were then asked how likely they would be to find a defendant guilty or not guilty based on certain types of evidence presented by the prosecution and the defense. Using the same cases and evidence described above, they gave the potential jurors 13 scenarios and five choices for each: I would find the defendant guilty, I would probably find the defendant guilty, I am not sure what I would do, I would probably find the defendant not guilty, I would find the defendant not guilty. Included in the 13 scenarios was the burden of proof and reasonable doubt instructions that are given to all seated jurors in criminal cases in Michigan.


The results of this survey were: 46 percent expected to see some kind of scientific evidence in every criminal case. 22 percent expected to see DNA evidence in every criminal case. 36 percent expected to see fingerprint evidence in every criminal case and 32 percent expected to see ballistic or other firearms laboratory evidence in every criminal case. The findings also suggested that the jurors' expectations were not just blanket expectations for scientific evidence, but expectations for particular types of scientific evidence instead. For example, 46 percent of respondents expected to see DNA evidence in the more serious violent offenses, like murder or attempted murder and 73 percent in rape cases. The findings also indicated that 71 percent wanted to see fingerprint evidence in breaking and entering cases, 59 percent in any theft case, and 66 percent in crimes involving a gun. For all categories of evidence, both scientific and nonscientific, CSI viewers (those who watch CSI on occasion, often, or regularly) generally had higher expectations in the way of evidence than non-CSI viewers (those who never or almost never watch the program). 


A few examples of jurors verdicts being affected by the CSI effect are, in 2007 in Richmond, Va., jurors in a murder trial asked the judge whether a cigarette butt found during the investigation could be tested for links to the defendant. Defense attorneys had ordered DNA tests but had not been able to obtain one and the jury acquitted him. In Phoenix in 2009, jurors in a murder trial noticed that a bloody coat introduced as evidence had not been tested for DNA. They alerted the judge. The tests hadn't been needed because the defendant had acknowledged being at the murder scene, but the jurors acquitted the defendant. 


After reading about the study done by the professors as Eastern Michigan University and the two cases in Virginia and Arizona, it strongly influenced my opinion on whether or not the CSI effect was actually real, and in my opinion it is a very real phenomenon. I think based on what TV gives us to watch, the more someone watches it the more they start to view it as reality and I think it is greatly interfering with the way jurors make their decisions. 


Works Cited


Campbell, A. (2008, May 17). Fingerprints and talking bones. Retrieved from http://thecsieffect.blogspot.com/2008/05/fingerprints-and-talking-bones.html

Kim, YS. (2009). Journal of criminal justice. Retrieved from washtenawtrialcourt.org Ramsland, K. (2006). The c.s.i. effect. New York, NY: Berkley Trade.

Unknown, Initials. (2010). Weekly ratings. Retrieved from http://tvbythenumbers.com/category/weekly-tv-ratings-rankings/nielsen-weekly-top-broadcast-tv-show-ratings

Willing, R. (2004, August 5). 'csi effect' has juries wanting more evidence. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-08-05-csi-effect_x.htm