Yale L.J. Watches CSI

The Yale Law Journal published an article examining the alleged "CSI Effect." Tom R. Tyler, Viewing CSI and the Threshold of Guilt: Managing Truth and Justice in Reality and Fiction, 115 Yale L.J. 1050 (2006).

The CSI Effect is based on reports by prosecutors that it is sometimes harder to get convictions because some jurors expect the whiz-bang high-tech forensic evidence they see on TV. On the other hand, some observers say that jurors might be more prone to convict because CSI (and othe TV shows) make them have more faith in the skills and resources of investigators. See earlier post.

Prof. Tyler, observing that there are no empirical studies of the CSI Effect, examines the hypothesis in light of empirical studies on juror psychology that do exist (e.g., those looking at the effect of pre-trial publicity). (His review of the studies in interesting in itself.) He concludes that the hypothesis is consistent with existing studies. But he cautions that other hypotheses could well account for the prosecutors' perceptions of harder convictions. (1) Prosecutors might believe their cases are stronger than they are. (2) Jurors might have more distrust of the state (police, prosecutors, courts). (3) Jurors might be more sympathetic toward defendants.

The Pocket Part, Yale Law Journal's online companion, adds more:

• An article by the chief prosecutor for Maricopa County (Phoenix and the surroundings) reports on a survey his office did of its own prosecutors. There are ways the prosecutors are working to counteract the effect, so convictions are not necessarily down, but they believe the effect is real.

  In about 40% of these prosecutors’ cases, jurors have about evidence like “mitochondrial DNA,” “latent prints,” “trace evidence,” or “ballistics”—even when these terms were not used at trial.
  * * *
  Even statements by defendants themselves have failed to persuade some juries. In State v. James Calloway, Arizona Department of Corrections officers found a syringe in a cell with a note signed by “Jimbo” attached to it. Inmate “Jimbo” was found with a fresh mark on his arm consistent with syringe use, and admitted the syringe was his when he retrieved it from prison officials and signed the receipt. The jury criticized the prosecution because there was no DNA or fingerprint analysis on the syringe, and the jurors wanted a handwriting comparison on the note and the receipt.

• A writer and technical consultant for CSI responds to Tyler's article. He suggests that there are benefits to any CSI Effect, in that it has helped educate the public about forensics and create an interest in science.

  Most importantly, CSI returns the focus to exonerating the innocent. In every episode the evidence convicts the bad guy, and at the same time it frees an innocent person. If it’s such a crime to reinvigorate the cliché that defendants are innocent until proven guilty, as a CSI writer, I’ll happily take the charge.

• Tyler also has a short piece in the Pocket Part. (If you don't have the time for the full article, this is a good overview.)

Filed in: CSI, empirical-studies, pretrial-publicity, Tyler, forensics, criminal-law, surveys

The CSI Effect

[NEWS] This weekend the Seattle Times ran an AP story about the "CSI Effect" -- worries that the popularity of shows like "CSI" and "Law & Order" affect jurors. Linda Deutsch, TV distorting jurors' expectationst?, Jan. 15.

Which side benefits the most — prosecutors or defense attorneys — is debatable. While "Law & Order" glamorizes prosecutors, "CSI" can set standards for the infallibility of forensic evidence that prosecutors can't often meet, a science-solves-all formula that millions of viewers may bring to jury service.
* * *
"The expectations of jurors are more elevated," said Elissa Mayo, assistant lab director for the California Attorney General's Bureau of Forensic Services. "They think that we have all the space-age equipment that they see on TV and before you come back from the commercial break you have the results."

For a sampling of other stories, see Bibliography of Resources Related to the CSI Effect, prepared for a program at last summer's ABA meeting, "CSI Meets the Courts: The Brave New World of Forensic Technology."

While at the ABA site, I found that the ABA awarded its "Silver Gavel" to the Chicago Tribune for a special series called "Forensics Under the Microscope." The reporters told the ABA:

As we were reporting the series, other newspapers were reporting on prosecutors’ complaints of a so-called “CSI effect,” that is, jurors acquitting defendants for lack of precise forensic evidence. In fact, our reporting showed the more systemic problem is that prosecutors are using unproven forensic evidence and testimony and that jurors are readily accepting it. We hope that readers — be they prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges or potential jurors — will be better informed when they enter the courtroom.

Categories: juries, evidence, forensics, CSI, ABA, popular-culture

Empirical Study of "CSI Effect"

There's been a lot of talk about a "CSI Effect" -- prosecutors say jurors are unwilling to convict without high-tech evidence. On the other hand, at least one attorney says there's a reverse CSI effect: jurors who like the show will believe any darn thing a forensics expert says. And I heard a forensic expert say he welcomes the effect of jurors understanding a little more about science. (See earlier posts.)

Now some social scientists have conducted an empirical study: Donald Shelton, Young Kim & Gregg Barak, SSRN-A Study of Juror Expectations and Demands Concerning Scientific Evidence: Does the 'CSI Effect' Exist?, forthcoming in Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law. [Update (March 27, 2008): The published version is at 9 Vand. J. Entertainment & Tech. L. 331 (2006). You can download a copy here.] Here's the abstract:

Many prosecutors, judges and journalists have claimed that watching television shows like CSI have caused jurors to wrongfully acquit guilty defendants when no scientific evidence is presented. This is the first empirical study designed to investigate whether the "CSI effect" exists.

This survey of 1027 persons called for jury duty in a State court looked at jurors' television viewing habits, their expectations that the prosecutor would produce scientific evidence, and whether they would demand scientific evidence as a condition of a guilty verdict.

While the study did find significant expectations and demands for scientific evidence, there was little or no indication of a link between those preconceptions and watching particular television shows. The authors suggest that to the extent that jurors have significant expectations and demands for scientific evidence, it may have more to do with a broader "tech effect" in our popular culture, and that the criminal justice system must adapt to accommodate jurors' expectations and demands for scientific evidence.

Update (March 27, 2008): Judge Donald E. Shelton, one of the authors of the study, wrote a shorter piece about it in the National Institute of Justice's NIJ Journal, March 17, 2008: The 'CSI Effect': Does It Really Exist?. Thanks: WisBlawg.

Another "CSI Effect"

Law.com - Prosecutors Say TV-Savvy Criminals Benefit From 'CSI Effect', Nat'l L.J., Feb. 17, 2006.

District attorneys across the nation are grumbling about a new kind of 'CSI effect' that makes their jobs tougher.

Not only are juries requiring more sophisticated scientific evidence linking defendants to crimes, but suspects have learned how to destroy that evidence by watching the CBS 'crime scene investigation' TV shows, according to prosecutors. Techniques such as bleaching away DNA, scrubbing away fingerprints -- even those on a neck limp from strangulation -- and torching bodies and crimes scenes top the list.

Like the other "CSI Effect," this one can hurt the defense as well as the prosecution. One defense lawyer noted that "when a crime scene has been cleansed and a jury still rightly expects hard evidence linking a defendant to the crime, prosecutors turn to pseudoscience."

"The net 'CSI' effect was that whoever cleaned up the crime scene opened the door to the admission of junk science that could point the finger at almost anyone," he said.

One man who allegedly used latex gloves and removed bedding after two rape murders had listed watching CSI as a hobby when he filled out a parole form. The prosecutor believed that the suspect "taught himself to be a proficient killer, skilled at leaving little evidence." This seems plausible -- but I'm reminded of Prof. Anderson's article about the admissibility of criminal defendants' taste in entertainment.

Filed in: CSI, popular-culture, forensics, criminal-law, UW, Anderson

Reverse CSI Effect?

A Connecticut civil rights lawyer (Norm Pattis) suggests the most likely effect of CSI's popularity is that "jurors love scientific evidence, even if the prosecutor presents it poorly." Crime & Federalism: Reverse CSI Effect? This a bit different from the observation by some prosecutors that CSI's effect is to make jurors less likely to convict without dazzling scientific evidence. (I suppose both positions could have some merit -- that jurors are less likely to convict with NO scientific evidence, but more likely to convict if there's ANY.)

Filed in: CSI, juries

Annals of Law: The CSI Effect:

In last week's New Yorker Jeffrey Toobin takes a look at forensic evidence: Annals of Law: The CSI Effect, New Yorker, May 7, 2007. (The link is only to an abstract, not the full article.)

CSI Effect?

Judge Donald E. Shelton, a trial judge in Michigan, writes about a study he and two colleagues conducted in which they surveyed jurors about their expectations for scientific evidence in criminal trials in the National Institute of Justice's NIJ Journal, March 17, 2008: The 'CSI Effect': Does It Really Exist?.

See earlier post about this study.

Thanks: WisBlawg.

Justice Talking

NPR's Justice Talking explores a current legal topic each week. You can listen on the radio (see the list of stations) or online. You can also sign up for podcasts.

This week's program is Collecting DNA from the Accused: Will it Help or Hurt Law Enforcement? .

• Host Margot Adler interviews: Chauncey Parker, NY State Director of Criminal Justice (NY has a new mandatory DNA collection program) and Prof. David Kaye, Univ. of Arizona law school
• Barry Scheck, co-founder of the Innocence Project at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, debates DNA lobbyist Chris Asplen.
• John Blythe reports on the case of Darryl Hunt, who was exonerated by DNA evidence
• Margot Adler interviews Dr. Lawrence Kobilinsky (John Jay College of Criminal Justice, CUNY) about "the CSI effect" and, finally, futurist Paul Saffo about DNA databanks and personal privacy.

The list of past shows (there are 250!) has lots of other great topics and speakers -- for instance

• "Are Lawyers Necessary in All Cases?" (3/28/06)
• "Murder: Beyond the Blood and Gore" (2/20/06)
• "When Kids Commit Crimes: What's a Fair Sentence?" (3/15/06)
• "Should Sex Offenders Have Civil Rights?" (11/14/05)
• "Limiting Lawsuits" (11/16/04)

Many of the programs have been accredited for CLE credits in many states (including Washington).

Thanks for the lead to WisBlawg.

Filed in: cool-websites, Justice-Talking, NPR, Adler, DNA, Parker, Kaye, Scheck, Innocence-Project, , Asplen, Hunt, Kobilinsky, CSI, Saffo, CLE

Graphic by mw.

'Law & Order' Meets the Law of Supply and Demand - New York Times

"Law and Order" junkies might be interested in this piece in the New York Times discussing the program's past, its spinoffs, and cast changes for next year: 'Law & Order' Meets the Law of Supply and Demand, NY Times, July 16, 2006.

Meanwhile, CBS will be advertising its fall lineup on laser-printed eggshells and puns: "crack the case" with CSI. For CBS's Fall Lineup, Check Inside Your Refrigerator, NY Times, July 17, 2006.

Filed in: television, Law-and-Order, CSI, popular-culture

Graphic by mw.

Want to Learn about Forensic DNA?

At the Innocence Project conference (here at the UW), I heard a talk by Dr. Greg Hampikian (Boise State) on the basics of DNA as it is used criminal investigations. Dr. Hampikian has a web page with a range of Forensic DNA links.

He recommended the Department of Justice's training modules (one beginning level, one advanced), What Every Law Enforcement Officer Should Know about DNA Evidence: Best Practices for Identification, Preservation, and Collection of DNA Evidence at the Crime Scene. The modules include interactive components -- e.g., a scene where you are the responding officer interviewing a rape victim and must make decisions about the investigation.

By the way, Dr. Hampikian says that he welcomes any "CSI Effect." A frequent expert witness, he finds that juries are much easier to educate about DNA than they used to be.

Categories: DNA, forensics, Hampikian, Innocence-Project, UW, CSI

CSI New York -- in the 1920s and 1930s!

In The Poisoner's Handbook, Deborah Blum tells the human and scientific stories of poison and investigation in the 1920s and 1930s, focusing on New York City and two crusading scientists: Charles Norris, the city's first medical examiner, and Alexander Gettler, the head chemist in the ME's office.

This work mixes a couple of nonfiction genres: true crime and popular science. A couple is found dead: accident or murder? Several family members die: all victims of disease or were they poisoned? It takes pretty sophisticated science to tell -- science that Norris and Gettler had to develop as they went along.

There's also some interesting social history. In addition to working on individual crimes, the scientists advocated (not always successfully) for public health measures -- workplace safety, a stronger FDA (able to ban, for instance, "medicines" with radium), and an end to Prohibition-era poisoning of alcohol (see Blum's account in Slate).

Deborah Blum, The Poisoner's Handbook: Murder and the Birth of Forensic Medicine in Jazz Age New York (HV6555.U62 N373 2010 at Good Reads). Publisher's page.