Should CSI Enthusiasts Serve on Juries?
Stacie Suemoto
Article is copyrighted. All rights pertain.
Almost since the inception of television itself, viewers have been intrigued with various aspects of the criminal justice system. When I was growing up shows like Perry Mason, Adam12 and Quincy M.D. were popular. As time progressed viewers began to want more realism in their viewing. Special effects were commonplace in movies and now they were being used in television shows. Law and Order became the first big criminal justice program spawning 2 spin-offs that displayed various law enforcement divisions (Special Victims Unit and Major Case Squad). People could watch a crime from its reporting; follow the detectives through their investigation, right through the arrest of the guilty party. The next half hour showed us what goes on behind the scenes at the prosecutor’s office.
Fast forward a few years and we have CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. For the first time people could watch what crime scene investigators look for at a scene and how evidence is collected. After the mound of evidence is collected it is taken to the lab for detailed testing. Gone are the days when Quincy’s side kick Sam just peers into the microscope for helpful clues. Now there are high tech computer programs to enhance images (photographic or digital), on-site DNA testing, use of entomology, AFIS for instant fingerprint comparison, ballistics testing, dental and shoe print comparison software plus much, much more. Reenactments both in and out of the autopsy room allow us to see the actual crime take place and what actually killed the person. Was she pushed by her adoring new husband or did she accidentally fall off that cliff bumping her head repeatedly on the way to the bottom? Was the tyrannical mother of the bride dead before she was tied to the bumper of the 1955 Chevy Bel Air the bride and groom are driving off in?
From the time a crime scene is located in one 45 minute episode it is solved. There is little waiting in line for test results, just stop into an office and ask for the results, magically some of them happen to be printing out at that same moment. The CSI’s get to talk to witnesses and suspects. Collecting more evidence and getting answers along the way. Finally, the case is solved; the guilty admit their involvement and it’s case closed.
The record viewers for this program and its spin-offs CSI: Miami and CSI: NY have created a new television programming trend. We can now see Criminal Minds where the FBI uses behavior analysis to catch criminals, Bones where forensic anthropology is used and Justice where defense attorneys manipulate the criminal justice system for high profile and very rich clients. Dr. Michael Baden recounts his most memorable cases on HBO in Autopsy #1-11. In fact, over 73 million people tuned into the top 3 broadcast television crime shows in one week alone.
One can ask what is the harm in viewing these programs and what does it have to do with real life jury selection? In real life, testing takes time. It is estimated that over 200-300,000 DNA samples are backlogged for testing. It takes months for results. Time of death can’t be determined to within 30 minutes or less of actual death. Toxicology results take months. Crime labs are under-funded and can’t produce the results that are seen on TV. Sometimes forensic scientists make mistakes such as those in the high profile OJ Simpson case or sometimes results are fabricated. Investigators are not infallible and they do not look for every type of evidence at a scene when it doesn’t apply to the crime for “just in case” scenarios.
There has been much debate about the effects of these fictional shows on the jurors. Prior to this viewing trend, people watching the progress of the OJ Simpson trial had never really heard about DNA testing. Some felt the jurors were asked to make a decision based upon science that they couldn’t understand. It was too much detail and there were too many mistakes. Fast forward to the Robert Blake case where jurors felt there wasn’t enough direct evidence. In fact, jurors, who were asked, said they wondered why there weren’t fingerprints on the gun, why there wasn’t gunshot residue on Blake’s hands and why the eyewitness couldn’t be more precise. According to Joshua Marquis, an Oregon prosecutor, “prosecutors across the country are very concerned about this." Marquis found it disturbing that Blake jurors "seemed very dismissive of circumstantial evidence," he said. "Well, guess what? In most cases, ... you don't have physical evidence."
Prosecutors are seeing what is being coined the “CSI Effect”. Jurors have unrealistic expectations. They expect the prosecutors to put on an entertaining presentation of the case and they expect to be provided with mounds of infallible evidence linking the person to the crime. In fact, in one case with a confession, the jurors asked why they didn’t test a piece of evidence for DNA. There was a confession, means, motive and opportunity, so it was unnecessary. It’s making cases difficult to win if there is an absence of physical evidence. Prosecutors are being placed in the position where they have to explain why they didn’t run certain tests or why certain evidence is absent from the case. This is called “negative evidence witness”. ”If there are no fingerprints in evidence, more prosecutors are asking investigators to explain why, lest jurors take their absence as cause for doubt.” (Roane, K.) There are more and more incidences where jurors have questioned cases. In Phoenix a jury asked a judge why DNA testing wasn’t done on a jacket. It wasn’t done because the defendant admitted to being at the scene. In Virginia a jury asked the judge why testing wasn’t done on a cigarette butt found at the scene. It was in fact ordered, but the results hadn’t been entered into evidence. The DNA evidence exonerated the defendant. Now, Massachusetts allows prospective jurors’ TV viewing habits to be questioned by prosecutors.
In my opinion, prospective jurors who watch forensic television programs should be exempted from jury duty. A juror’s only requirement is to look for the truth. Preconceived ideas about forensic science bias any potential juror. They expect to find mountains of infallible forensic information. They have unrealistic expectations of what the science behind the cases can show or how it should be interpreted. Cases have to be adjusted to fill in knowledge gaps or to show why certain forensic evidence or testing was not used. This increases the chances that either side can manipulate the jurors. Jurors lose sight of their main goal, to be fair and impartial.
References:
Roane, K. R. The CSI Effect. US News and World Report. Retrieved from
www.usnews.com.
Willing, R. “CSI effect” has juries wanting more evidence. USA Today. Retrieved from
http://www.usatoday.com/.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Dear Stacie,
You say 'There are more and more incidences where jurors have questioned cases.' and see this as a negative trend.
From another perspective it is positive and hopefully evidence that forensic evidence is no longer considered as 'infallible'.
For years lawyers, judges and juries have accepted the evidence of ‘experts’ almost without question and many miscarriages of justice have occurred.
Where I suspect we might agree is in the need for more understanding of the reality of the forensic sciences instead of unquestioning acceptance or dismissal.
I speak from the experience of my daughter having been accused by fingerprint experts who after nearly a decade refuse to admit their mistakes despite courts and enquiries proving them wrong.
You will find our story at:
www.shirleymckie.com
Best wishes,
Iain McKie
In the case of Robert Blake, the "CSI Effect" was an excuse. What reporters who have written about this effect fail to mention is that the Blake case was "the most extensive investigation in LAPD history" according to the then Chief of Police Bernard Parks. It was also the most expensive. The state charged Blake with “intentionally discharging a handgun” to murder Bakley; they never claimed Blake hired someone to do it for him. The State tested Blake's hands for GSR, used resources at the FBI, tested Blake's clothes at two independent labs, and spent three years running tests on the car, including super-gluing the entire car and body-scanning the hood. The prosecution knew there should have been physical evidence since Blake was at the scene of the crime at the time of the shooting, but they never found any. The prosecution then filed a motion to suppress their test results at trial, which the defense opposed. The judge consented to allowing the test results to be stipulated, but the defense was not allowed to call witnesses regarding the state's lack of findings.
In fact, when questioned about an oily coating the gun, Prosecutor Samuels told the press it must have been something that was in the dumpster. But if the source of the oil was in the dumpster, why wasn’t it on any other items in the dumpster, and why did they send samples of it and the oil in Blake’s car to three different labs for identification? Traces of the oil should have been on Blake’s hands as well as GSR.
Fortunately, the criminal trial jurors found Blake not guilty of the charges. They spent nine days and filled a roomful of whiteboards with information to draw their conclusions -- yes, something you might see on CSI.
It is appropriate to expect physical evidence where there should be that evidence.
I attended the Blake trials. The criminal jurors worked extremely hard to reach their verdict. The news media should stop proliferating this CSI myth about why Blake was acquitted. It dishonors the jurors, the judicial system, and the Constitution.
Post a Comment