Background:
The ‘CSI Effect’ is the supposed phenomenon caused by viewing crime and forensic
science shows, such as CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. It is said to influence juries’
decisions at trial by increasing their expectations of forensic evidence. However,
there is much debate regarding whether this effect does, in fact, exist. This briefing
note will discuss what research and evidence suggests, present the ‘Tech Effect’
theory, and outline the issues this could have on criminal proceedings. It will then
provide recommendations on whether research projects into the effect are needed,
and other possible ways to tackle its impact.
The ‘CSI Effect’: Does it Exist?
There has been much conflicting evidence regarding whether the CSI Effect exists.
The study that has been regarded as the effect’s “primary empirical
foundation” (Kimberlianne Podlas, 2017) is the Maricopa County study. 102
prosecutors were asked whether they believed a CSI Effect existed, many of them
believing it did. However, there are problems with this study. Firstly, the sample size
is quite small -but more importantly, this survey only looked into prosecutors’ beliefs
– not whether the CSI Effect actually existed. Additionally, much of the evidence
presented in studies regarding the CSI Effect is evidence that juries acquitted a
defendant though there was much evidence of their guilt. An example of such a case
is that of Robert Blake – on trial for the murder of his wife. However, these studies
failed to consider other factors, such as that the jury’s decision actually heavily
depended on their “assessment of the veracity of the witnesses,” and the “theory of
guilt presented.” ((Kimberlianne Podlas, 2017)
Furthermore, some argue that past evidence of the CSI Effect in juries can
simply be explained by novelty bias. (Chloe Lodge and Mircea Zloteanu, 2020)
Recent data suggests that juries are not actually as influenced as had been
previously argued – potentially showing a shift in expectations regarding evidence.
Another important thing to consider is that many of the studies have been conducted
through mock-juries. This means that those involved volunteered to be part of the
jury – creating a certain group of people. Secondly, there is less pressure when the
jury know the trial is not real – and someone’s life does not depend on their decision.
, Therefore, these mock-juries and surveys do not accurately represent juries as a
whole.
One of the main things to consider is whether this evidence of higher
expectations of forensic evidence in trial impacts the jury’s verdict. In research
conducted in Massachusetts, evidence of this was not found. Other evidence had an
impact on the final verdict. This being said, other studies have argued otherwise, for
example claiming that heavy crime show viewers were less likely to convict when not
much forensic evidence was present.
Instead: The ‘Tech Effect’:
A theory that is slowly replacing the CSI Effect is the ‘Tech Effect.’ Instead of solely
due to TV shows, this is the idea that as technology and science as a whole are
developing, jurors are expecting more of said science to be presented in trials. This
means that TV shows could be included within this theory. The Tech Effect is well
described through this quote: “Increasing exposure to and experience with such a
wide range of scientific and technological advances,” causes people to “naturally
expect the trial venue to be similarly affected and, therefore, rely on scientific
evidence wherever appropriate.” (Baskin & Sommers, 2010). Of course, it makes
sense that as science develops and we as people are able to learn about it through
shows, social media or news, this becomes something we expect. This being said,
the Tech Effect can present a variety of problems.
Increased difficulty in prosecuting defendants:
Jurors want to be presented with more scientific evidence in order to convict
someone. They expect the “smoking gun and DNA proof.” (Rasmussen
University, 2022) A study of randomly summoned jurors conducted in
Michigan found that 46% expected to see some kind of scientific evidence in
every criminal case. 22% expected to see DNA evidence in every criminal
case. This was dependent on the crime, with a higher percentage expecting
DNA evidence in a case of violent crime.
In many cases, it is not possible to present forensic evidence, or enough to
meet their expectations, which can result in acquittal. Many think this is why
