[wideawake]

The CSI factor is the unfortunate fact that about 75% of TV dramas/procedurals have followed the CSI TV show trend: in almost every fictional criminal case on these shows, there is some irrefutable, probative smoking gun - a clear piece of forensic evidence that can point to only one person.

This filters into the culture - all these TV dramas make the average person on the street think that unless there is precise and unambiguous forensic evidence then the prosecution should not get a conviction.

[samtheman]

Do prosecutors ever bring up the CSI factor? Was it mentioned to the jury in this case?

[WhyisaTexasgirlinPA]

OH that is a perfect example of the mindset of some of the freepers.... they seem to think circumstantial evidence means “take a wild guess” - I reminded some that even fingerprints and DNA are considered circumstantial evidence because someone has to study and make a determination

[afraidfortherepublic]

The CSI factor is the unfortunate fact that...

Another generation would be influenced by the Perry Mason factor where the guilty party (usually a witness) is suddenly overwhelmed by something Perry says and confesses right there in the stand.

[reaganaut]

You are absolutely correct. Juries are spoiled, they expect a ‘smoking gun’ forensically, answers to ALL questions, and evidence beyond ALL doubt, and that just isn’t what the law requires.

I get so sick of people who can’t understand the difference between reasonable doubt and no doubt at all.

[TigerClaws]

Unless there’s enough evidence to bring it to beyond reasonable doubt = not guilty.

It’s not “not guilty” it’s prosecution didn’t prove his case.