Explore the intriguing phenomenon known as the 'CSI Effect' observed in the United States and its potential implications for English courts. This document delves into the suggestion that courts in England should exercise caution regarding the influence of forensic evidence on juries. Gain insights ...
The so called ‘CSI Effect’ observed in the United States suggests that Courts
in England should be wary about the impact of Forensic Evidence has on
juries.
One of the most difficult duties that the law commits to itself is to identify
whether a defendant is guilty or innocent. The law has made considerable
strides in incorporating scientific breakthroughs into its practise during the
past three decades, including innovations like DNA typing, physical evidence
databases, and ever-more complex systems. The significance of forensic
evidence in the criminal justice system has also been made more widely
known by the mainstream media. This essay will examine the setting in which
the CSI effect was discovered originally. The following section of this essay
will critically review research on the CSI effect. This essay will then consider
how preconceived notions and current views may have an impact on the jury
members' understanding of the provided forensic evidence. Fourth, the
solutions proposed by the government to counteract any potential CSI effects
will be examined. The integration of the COVID-19 pandemic and the current
economic crisis into the suggested proposals will then be thoroughly
considered.
The 'CSI Effect' is a well-known phenomenon in which jurors excessively
accept forensic evidence as a result of their exposure to popular crime
dramas.1 One such programme is CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, which
debuted on CBS on October 6, 2000, and has become well-known for its
depiction of the meticulous work of crime scene investigators.2 Some
academics contend that that impact is not as substantial as asserted and that
the media, attorneys, and forensic scientists are bringing attention to it for
another motive. Some attorneys may be harbouring ‘sour grapes’ about
unsuccessful cases, while others may be using the ‘CSI effect’ to defend legal
gambits or alleviate concerns about scientific expertise. 3 Another element that
1
Bonnel A. Klentz, Georgia M. Winters & Jason E. Chapman, ‘The CSI Effect and the impact of DNA evidence on mock jurors and
jury deliberations’ (2020) 26(6) PCL, 552.
2
ibid.
3
Simon Cole, ‘A surfeit of science: The ‘CSI effect’ and the media appropriation of the public understanding of science’ (2015)
24(2) PUS, 139.
, has been found to contribute to the ‘CSI effect’ in the media is panic. 4 In order
to attain fluidity in public discourse, the media heavily depends on prosecutors
and forensic scientists to produce CSI effect narratives, where prosecutors
and forensic scientists minimise the capabilities of forensic science without
undermining its apparent trustworthiness.5 The CSI Effect is still a significant
problem for the criminal justice system, however, because nearly 30,000
criminal cases go to trial each year, resulting in the summoning of 40,000
juries.6 It is important to note that the ‘CSI effect’ may be utilised by UK
prosecutors and defence attorneys as a justification when they lose a case
because jury deliberations continues to be a secret even after the trial has
ended. It is necessary to examine assertions regarding the ‘CSI effect’
critically and to consider those who promote the effect's underlying objectives.
Little is understood about how juries reconcile discrepancies between forensic
and scientific evidence that is given during a trial. However, Goodman-
Delahunty and Tait investigated jury decisions in the setting of a real,
simulated murder trial that included customary legal procedural precautions
against jury error.7 The results of this investigation showed that even when
forensic science specialists used advanced computer simulations, other
evidence in the case received greater significance during deliberations.8 The
study also discovered that juries were made more conscious of the
restrictions of expert testimony in addressing the case's concerns when they
deliberated about two conflicting experts.9 The study demonstrates that juries
can evaluate the evidence that is provided to them without being misled by
science.10 As post-trial surveys and interviews used to analyse jury
judgements are not always indicative of their performance, incorporating this
study in the UK may give us more precise insights into jury behaviour.11
4
ibid.
5
ibid.
6
Chloe Lodge and Mircea Zloteanu, ‘Juror’s expectations and decision-making: revisiting the CSI effect’ (2020) NEB, 19.
7
Jane Goodman-Delahunty & Kosuke Wakabayshi, 'Adversarial Forensic Science Experts: An Empirical Study of Jury
Deliberation' (2012) 24 Current Issues Crim Just, 85.
8
ibid, 100.
9
ibid.
10
ibid.
11
ibid, 88.
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller raahavy19. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £10.49. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
