"CSI Effect" Causing Courts Problems

imdb.com ^ | 2/23/05

[paudio]

American TV show CSI: Miami has been attacked by a top scientist for misleading jurors with its unrealistic portrayal of the capabilities of forensic experts and the boundaries of science. Lawyers fear the popular drama has precipitated the "CSI effect" by giving the public unrealistic expectations of what can be achieved in forensic laboratories - and that forensic testimonies are beyond reproach. West Virginia University expert Max Houck says, "Defense attorneys now worry about the CSI effect because they think the jurors view science as this juggernaut, this infallible, objective method that is always right, always accurate and that spells doom for their client."

[paudio]

We also had our hope high with spies from CIA, FBI, etc., from movies...

[k2blader]

"The CSI effect"... *LOL*!

[flashbunny]

Anybody that watches CSI should be eliminated from jury pools.

Not because of junk science, but because it shows incredibly poor taste.

[lewislynn]

There can't be a worse (over) actor than that red haired clown on CSI Miami.

[the_Watchman]

I would expect a secondary effect in favor of the defense: If a CSI unit can't find credible evidence, then an event probably never took place.

[talosiv]

I STILL can't see him on TV and NOT think about the early South Park where Stan gets his brother to jump from the hovering alien ship by saying "Ike, do your impression of David Caruso's career !".

[lewislynn]

Stan gets his brother to jump from the hovering alien ship by saying "Ike, do your impression of David Caruso's career !".

LOL!

[babygene]

"I would expect a secondary effect in favor of the defense: If a CSI unit can't find credible evidence, then an event probably never took place."

I agree... This could work more for the defense. I was on a jury a while back, and the defendant was accused of being in the possession of drugs. He was driving his girl friends car, and after he was stopped and the car searched, they found drugs in the trunk. We did not convict him, because even though the prosecutor suggested he must have known about them, they presented NO evidence (fingerprint or otherwise) that he had ever opened the trunk or handled the stuff. They wanted us to assume he was guilty. We did not... We felt that they clearly checked for fingerprints in the trunk and the reason it did not come up at trial was because his weren't there. The instructions from the judge were that to be in possession, he must be aware of them. Interestingly, the defense didn't make a point of this. Of course he had a public defender.

[DTogo]

CSI effect: Male jurors dissappointed when forensic expert is not a hot babe in tight clothing.

[greasepaint]

I was in a jury pool for a case where there
was no physical evidence, only the complaining 'witness'.
The clown for the state said something to the effect:
he specifically mentioned CSI
something like, 'CSI doesn't always yield evidence,
we got nothing, I want a conviction'.

[FoxInSocks]

We felt that they clearly checked for fingerprints in the trunk and the reason it did not come up at trial was because his weren't there.

I'm sure the judge instructed you all not to make assumptions like that.

[babygene]

" I'm sure the judge instructed you all not to make assumptions like that."

No, and if you think about it, for him to ask us not to consider "lack of evidence" would be inappropriate...