‘There is limited published evidence on how the portrayal of forensic science in the
media affects juries’ perceptions of forensic science’. ( Forensic science and the
criminal justice system: a blueprint for change HLSTSC 2019, para 139 )
To what extent does this statement articulate a problem for the criminal trial system?
In today’s society, judging by the ever-growing production of matter on the subject,
(TV, movies, news articles, etc.) we can assert that there is an increasing interest
surrounding forensic science and its application within criminal justice.
This fascination is an extremely interesting topic that many have delved into,
but what is less talked about is the impact of the media on individuals’ perceptions of
forensic science, and its impact on criminal trials. We can see, from the limited
existing evidence, two proposed theories regarding the media’s portrayal of forensic
science and its impact on juries: the CSI effect and the Tech effect. Both argue that
the media has an impact on juries’ perceptions of forensic science, and therefore
criminal trials. However, the types of media concerned differ. The CSI effect focuses
on TV shows and movies, and the Tech Effect concerns the development of science
and technology as a whole.
This essay will highlight that the evidence currently published is, in two ways,
limited - and that this constitutes a serious problem for the criminal trial system. It will
first discuss the evidence being limited by the amount of publications, which results
in an inability to have a clear insight into the impact of the media on juries and trials.
Then, it will discuss evidence being limited by its depth, breadth and quality - due to
the methods of research used, lack of in-depth analysis, and geographic relevance
of the research. Lastly, it will assess the consequences this has on the trial system,
through the inability to implement safeguards or solutions.
Amount
The first issue caused by the lack of published evidence is an unclear insight into the
effect of media on juries’ perceptions of forensic science. If the CSI and Tech effect
are, in fact, existent, this is significantly problematic as it raises the issue of their
impact on criminal trials.
, Firstly, jurors may expect a certain amount of forensic evidence to be
produced and presented at trial. A Michigan study published statistics that 46% of
jurors expected to see scientific evidence in every criminal case presented, and 22%
expected to see DNA evidence in every criminal case. 1 This is not unreasonable -
with these types of evidence available to us today, it seems that juries want to base
their decisions on more ‘solid’ evidence before deciding on a verdict. However, this
may adversely affect many trials as some do not have (or don’t have much) scientific
evidence to present - but have other robust evidence produced by more traditional
investigative police work, such as eyewitnesses. Unfortunately, it has been shown
that forensic evidence can often “overpower” 2 other kinds of evidence.
Additionally, there is the concern that the media portrays forensic evidence as
being infallible. In 'CSI And Its Effects: Media, Juries, And The Burden Of Proof,’
Cole and Dioso-Villa discuss the idea that the impact of the media may alter the
burden of proof in trials. The legal burden of proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, does
not mean absolute mathematical certainty. However, “science is often presumed to
be a mathematical certainty.”3 As stated by Sarah Whitehouse QC, juries often think
“DNA will solve everything.”4 Consequently, jurors may place a greater weight on
forensic science than other evidence. This is worrying as sometimes, there may be a
very small amount of forensic science in comparison to the other evidence, or the
forensic evidence may be unreliable. Placing more trust in it may be unfair to the
defendant and trial. As a result, many worry that jury members affected by the CSI or
Tech effect may ‘contaminate’ other jury members. Lastly, increased knowledge and
reliance on forensic science has resulted in some jury members “constantly asking
questions in a trial”5 about pieces of evidence and whether they have been tested.
This can be disruptive and lead fellow jurors to doubt and under evaluate certain
evidence.
1
'The 'CSI Effect': Does It Really Exist?' (National Institute of Justice, 2022)
2
Ian Hawkins and Kyle Scherr, 'Engaging The CSI Effect: The Influences Of Experience-Taking, Type
Of Evidence, And Viewing Frequency On Juror Decision-Making' (2017) 49 Journal of Criminal
Justice.
3
Simon A. Cole and Rachel Dioso-Villa, 'CSI And Its Effects: Media, Juries, And The Burden Of Proof'
(2007) 41 New England Law Review.
4
House of Lords, Select Committee on Science and Technology: 'Corrected Oral Evidence: Forensic
Science,' 2018
5
Science and Technology Select Committee, ‘Forensic Science and the Criminal Justice System: A
Blueprint for Change,’ 3rd Report of Session 2017–19
