• news
  • SUNDAY MAY 22 2005 3:00 PM

CSI: Dumbass Juries

Submitted by jake_lex

Edited by Christopher

The show CSI is complicating things greatly for some prosecutors, as juries now expect forensic evidence to be brought into every trial, even though police, as a matter of course, do not collect forensic evidence from every crime scene. This has led to acquittals and hung juries in some cases, even when there were eyewitnesses to the crime, and prosecutors having to spend time and call witnesses to explain why forensic evidence was not taken in this case. Defense lawyers have been quick to jump on what has come to be called the "CSI effect".


Leon Dempsky understands the influence that crime shows can have on juries. The Arlington defense lawyer says he will tweak his closing arguments based on rudimentary knowledge of forensics that jurors might have picked up from watching television.

"If someone breaks into a house, and the police don't have the suspect's fingerprints, I'm going to argue that there are no fingerprints," Dempsky said. "If a woman is raped, but there are no bruises and no DNA, then I'm going to argue that, too."

It is not known how many cases have been affected by such crime shows in trial preparation, tactics or verdicts. But there is a growing body of anecdotal evidence, and in more than a dozen interviews, prosecutors and defense lawyers in the Washington region cited specific cases in which they believe the demand for forensic evidence influenced the outcome -- because jurors told them so after trial.

"I find myself bringing it up when picking a jury," said Jennifer Pollard, an assistant commonwealth's attorney in Alexandria. "I try to point out that it's entertainment and not real life."



Further, there's worry that CSI gives jurors an unrealistic idea of how DNA tests and other tests are done in crime labs, making them think that they can be done in a matter of hours, whereas in real life it takes days or weeks, and is often done in vastly understaffed and underequipped crime labs, not the shiny, state-of-the-art facilities on the approximately 49 CSI shows.

On the other hand, if forensic evidence is pulled from a scene, the "CSI effect" might lead to jurors immediately concluding the defendant is guilty.


Most Thursdays at 9 p.m., Virginia Adams is in front of her television, drawn to the latest exploits of the beautiful and sharply dressed crime-lab technicians who star on "CSI."

Adams, 60, follows as the characters investigate violent crimes and identify suspects through the analysis of blood spatter, fingerprints and microscopic hairs and fibers collected from crime scenes.

So when Adams was selected last month to sit on a jury in one of Pollard's cases in Alexandria, she listened intently as the prosecutor outlined the crux of the burglary case: Five fingerprints that lab tests concluded belonged to the defendant were left inside the apartment he was accused of ransacking.

Case closed.

"If it hadn't been for those clear prints, I would've wondered whether the police had done their job," Adams said, adding that she counts herself among the estimated 27 million viewers who tune in every week to the original "CSI," set in Las Vegas. Other shows, including "Forensic Files," "Law and Order" and two "CSI" spinoffs, set in New York and Miami, also deal with forensics.



So here's the lesson for today: try your best to stay out of trouble, because if you end up on trial, your fate rests in the hands of 12 people who not only couldn't figure out a way to get out of jury duty, but believe that overhyped, overrated shows from Hollywood schlock-meister Jerry Bruckheimer are reality.

  • PERMALINK
  • PRINT
  • Digg This
  • Email To A Friend
 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3

Next

Comments
Cassiel

Cassiel

Aurora, CO
September 2004

MAY 22, 2005 03:11 PM

I don't understand the immense popualrity of all these crime shows? Whats the fascination with them?

dem_z

dem_z

United Kingdom
June 2004

MAY 22, 2005 03:14 PM

You mention eye witnesses. Is there any research to show that eye witnesses are any good? I seem to remember reading a lot about how terrible most eye witneses actually are. I'll try to find the study, it's quite interesting to see just how bad some people are as eye witnesses.

Also:

your fate rests in the hands of 12 people who not only couldn't figure out a way to get out of jury duty,


Isn't dodging jury duty worse than not voting? whatever

thefreak

thefreak

NEWSWIRE

Gardner, MA

MAY 22, 2005 03:14 PM

I miss Jerry Orbach.



That is all.

(And yes, I know that he was in Law & Order, but I'd watch that over CSI anyday.)

-TM

Hipples

hipples

Victoria, BC
May 2005

MAY 22, 2005 03:16 PM

Score another point for NOT watching television...

SignalNoise

SignalNoise

USA
February 2004

MAY 22, 2005 03:18 PM

you sort of wonder: are jurires just aping these stuff? OR, are they actually picking up some valid points about evidence from these TV shows? b/c, if it's the latter and its making folks think a little harder/more critically, that's kinda cool.

abadinfluence

abadinfluence

Canada
July 2003

MAY 22, 2005 03:25 PM

WOW - hold up ... you mean to say that judges are just allowing this shit to go on?

For years and years the judicial system (while corrupt as it was) did their job ... then this show comes along and because the real life case isn't as exciting as the TV case, the jurors decide it isn't worth their time?

How long before evidence starts being made up just to appease the short attention spans of jurors?

That's fucking weak that shit like this happens. Good to know criminals are getting off free 'cause some asshat can't cheer on Grissom.

MissTyrios

misstyrios

NEWSWIRE

Allston, MA

MAY 22, 2005 03:25 PM

demetrius_z said:
You mention eye witnesses. Is there any research to show that eye witnesses are any good? I seem to remember reading a lot about how terrible most eye witneses actually are. I'll try to find the study, it's quite interesting to see just how bad some people are as eye witnesses.

Also:

your fate rests in the hands of 12 people who not only couldn't figure out a way to get out of jury duty,


Isn't dodging jury duty worse than not voting? whatever



Eye witness testimony can be exceptionally unreliable. I'll try to find some of the research I've seen. I start as a public defender tomorrow (well, public defender intern as I've only finished 2 years of law school, though I am certified to appear in court) and I'm curious to see how eye witness testimony/forensics play out in real life. My job is mostly going to be pleading misdemeanors, but hopefully I'll get some real life insight into this.

jake_lex

jake_lex

Lexington, KY
February 2003

MAY 22, 2005 03:26 PM

I feel split on this. Yes, juries should be skeptical of evidence, and question it sharply. But a lot of this seems to be along the lines of "Well, last night on CSI, they found the real killer because he farted at the crime scene, and they used a spectrometer to analyze the lingering gas, and the police haven't done that here, so he must be innocent."

Besides, given the state of a lot of forensic labs now, I'm also worried about the automatic acceptance of that evidence as proof of guilt.

Twwly

Twwly

SUICIDEGIRL

Ontario, Canada

MAY 22, 2005 03:29 PM

People should just know better than to believe everything they see on TV.

If they are THAT naive, I doubt they would have made very good jurors in the first place.

Innocence

Innocence

United Kingdom
November 2003

MAY 22, 2005 03:31 PM

demetrius_z said:
You mention eye witnesses. Is there any research to show that eye witnesses are any good? I seem to remember reading a lot about how terrible most eye witneses actually are. I'll try to find the study, it's quite interesting to see just how bad some people are as eye witnesses.

Also:

your fate rests in the hands of 12 people who not only couldn't figure out a way to get out of jury duty,


Isn't dodging jury duty worse than not voting? whatever




Eye witnesses can be exremely unreliable. I've done a lot of study into the area as part of my Psychology A level/degree and it's really interesting stuff. Unfortunately can't find anything relevnt right now-have a big essay due in-brain overload!!

Innocence

Innocence

United Kingdom
November 2003

MAY 22, 2005 03:34 PM

Twwly said:
People should just know better than to believe everything they see on TV.



I have a friend who is taking a Forensic Psychology module on our degree course next year...and the reason she gave? Beacause it's "very CSI"-oh...my...god.whatever She actually believes it will be just like the kinds of things she watches so avidly every week on the TV. I have warned her that i've done similar modules and they are NOT glamorous and "cool"-they are bloody hard-oh well, her loss!!

Sexdwarf

Sexdwarf

Hermosa Beach, CA
February 2003

MAY 22, 2005 04:08 PM

I don't see anything wrong people wanting more evidence, cops should show a little more hustle; definately bad though when any evidence automatically means someone is guilty.

CathShee

CathShee

Gresham, OR
October 2003

MAY 22, 2005 04:34 PM

as for being too dumb to get out of jury duty, maybe that is part of the problem, the reasonably intelligent people tend to think they have better thing to do with their time then be on a jury so all the jurors end up being the kind of people your all talking about? Justice is flawed because humans are flawed. Science and DNA evidence works but is underfunded and unappreciated, I have read many cases were people have been acquited years after the fact based on DNA evidence and people who are still in prison even with DNA evidence that proves their innocent. The Point? Like voting Jury duty is your civic duty, so do it because that is what democracy is about and not participating in it puts a real crimp in your ability to bitch about it dying off in the good old US of A. And as for the jurys? More money and time should be put into perfecting and streamlining hard science as a tool in court cases, and people should be told by the judges not the lawyers the facts of CSI vs real world science.

CathShee

CathShee

Gresham, OR
October 2003

MAY 22, 2005 04:36 PM

And by the way the reason people don't trust DNA evidence? Religion anyone?

Vampirate

Vampirate

Durham, NC
October 2004

MAY 22, 2005 04:48 PM

You know what always drives me crazy about those shows? How dark the labs are! Talk about unrealistic. How does anybody SEE what they're working on in those places?

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3

Next

featured interviews