Categories: news, law, science, television
I came across a pretty interesting article today about the negative impact the TV show
CSI is having in courtrooms. At first it seemed like a ridiculous entry topic, because I only had one link, found through
Fark in the
Cincinnati Enquirer. As a general rule I have a bias against any news outfit labeled Enquirer, thanks to the National Enquirer tabloid. So I ran it through the search engines and found similar articles on the websites for
USA Today,
National Geographic and
CNN. Apparently the impact of the show has many different forms, both positive and negative. Forensic science programs around the nation have seen increases in enrollment, which is thought to be partially attributed the popularity of the
CSI: Las Vegas, Miami and New York. The forensic science program at West Virginia University was chosen by 13% of incoming freshman, making it the most popular field of study for the second consecutive year. This is pretty much the extent of the show's positive impact.
For detectives, lawyers and judges, questions like "aren't you going to dust that for prints?" have become the bane of their procedural existence. While the show has provided viewers with a basic education on crime scenes and forensic evidence, it has also given those viewers unrealistic expectations about the process of solving crimes. When those viewers become jurors, those expectations create significant problems. In the
Robert Blake trial jurors were found to have believed witness testimony that Blake repeatedly attempted murder-for-hire schemes, but eventually sided with the defense because of a lack of DNA or fingerprint evidence. Likewise, last year in a Phoenix, AZ murder case the jury felt the need to point out to a judge that a bloody coat found in the possession of the defendant has not been tested for DNA. However, the jury failed to recognize that by admitting the defendant was present at the scene of the crime, the defense had eliminated the need for DNA testing. Jurors who watch
CSI have come to expect computer modeled recreations of crimes as well as infallible fingerprint lifting off the smallest pieces of evidence. Failure to introduce these kinds of evidence at trial can be viewed as a weakness, when in reality it may not be possible or relevant to the case to do so. Conversely the presentation of some of these types of evidence can lead jurors to jump to conclusions a lawyer may not be able to successfully argue. Real life crime scene investigators have also noticed a rise in civilian
CSI-related idiocy, with the phrase "that is not how they do it on CSI" being the weapon of choice.
Criminals have taken an interest in the lessons learned by CSI as well. The use of bleach to contaminate blood evidence at crime scenes has steadily risen in the five years CSI has been on the air. Some have even taken to gathering and burning evidence used in murders, bodies even, and cigarette butts which can and have been successfully tested for DNA, proving the presence of a defendant at a crime scene.
Massachusetts has begun including questions regarding the TV habits of potential jurors in their questionnaires, in hopes of counter-balancing or at least identifying potential "know-it-alls". As prosecutors and defense attorneys begin to fully understand the expectations CSI has created in court rooms, I believe they will begin to use the show's viewership as grounds for juror disqualification. Already, both sides have even gone so far as to introduce what they call "negative evidence" witnesses, to explain to jurors specifically why DNA or fingerprint evidence is either irrelevant or unavailable for a particular trial. Hopefully all of these measures will work to preserve the impartiality of juries, and when people are tried for a serious crime it well ensure that a verdict is based on more than the similarity of the crime to an episode of CSI.
CONTINUE