“They didn’t even dust the lawn for fingerprints.”
That’s what one juror told Judge Donald E. Shelton, of Ann Arbor, Mich., after a trial he presided over.
“Today ordinary people know or at least think they know more about science and technology than they ever learned in school,” Shelton said. “It’s clear that jurors do have significant expectations that prosecutors will use modern science and technology to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
It is also clear that millions of ordinary Americans watch television dramas such as CSI and Law & Order, Shelton said. And those ordinary people make up juries across the country.
In fact, based on Nielsen ratings for a week of television in November 2005, nearly 30 million people watched CSI in one night. Another nearly 70 million people watched one of three CSI programs that week.
“How many of the people reported to jury duty the next day?” Shelton asked.
That’s the so-called “CSI Effect” Shelton challenged in Tuesday’s session, “Public Safety: The CSI Effect—Dispelling Myths on the Use of DNA Evidence.” That session was also the first CSG session to offer continuing legal education credits to lawyers.
“We are pleased to be offering this program now and we hope to grow this program in the future,” said Steven Gregory, chief legal counsel for CSG.
To test the CSI Effect, Shelton conducted a survey to find if juror expectations and their demands for scientific evidence during a trial were due to watching shows like CSI. Shelton found in his survey that 46 percent of jurors expect to see some kind of scientific evidence in every criminal case. Another nearly 22 percent expect to see DNA evidence in every criminal case.
But scientific evidence is not always critical in a criminal case. Take rape cases, for example, Shelton said. Nearly three-fourths of the jurors expect DNA in a rape case, but “those of us who have tried a rape case know that DNA is not often a question,” Shelton said. It’s not a question of penetration, but often a question of consent or force, he said. Those types of questions are not answered by DNA.
Shelton’s survey concluded that in all categories, CSI watchers expected more evidence than non-CSI watchers. But when it comes to demands for scientific evidence as a condition for a guilty verdict, Shelton found there was no statistical difference between those who watch CSI and those who don’t.
In other words, Shelton concluded that juror demands for scientific evidence are a result of broader, pop culture changes—something he called the “tech effect,” not just from watching television crime drama. That means that the criminal justice system must find ways to adapt to the effect, Shelton said, and it may cost a lot of money.
After all, many state government crime labs are outdated and suffer from backlogs that can last months, he said.
Michigan just went in the opposite direction, Shelton said. The state closed two of four crime labs.
In Texas, massive backlogs in processing criminal evidence upset law enforcement and last year it was used as a campaign issue.
“Public crime labs must be brought up to modern standards,” Shelton said. If that doesn’t happen, jurors may conclude that there’s reasonable doubt that the criminal justice system isn’t doing their job, he said.
—Mikel Chavers
Comments