Does CSI Effect Influence Jury Verdicts?

In the past, the jury learned from the forensic scientists’ testimony; but now, they’re learning from television and a lot of reality shows. Consequently, what they’re learning is not necessarily what is actually done (Honeycutt). However, those jurors who watch criminal investigation television shows do believe that what they’re seeing on TV is what does go on in real life and they expect to see it in court. This is because, according to Shelton, “the more frequently jurors watched a given program, the more accurate they perceived it to be.”

The CSI Effect is said to have poisoned the minds of jurors and their expectations of presenting evidence by the forensic science T.V. shows like CSI (Crime Scene Investigators) influence their perceptions of jurors being able to provide forensic evidence. “Using the fact that Hollywood could determine the outcome of case by letting the guilty go free, but in a society where the criminal justice system has convicted many people who was innocent.” (McRobert’s, Mills, & Possley, 2005, P. 1). Juror’s have demanded the use of forensic science for forensic evidence in criminal trials which means that prosecutors will have to provide more of the proof of juror’s to get a conviction. CSI Effect believe that crimes show such as CSI have little to no affect on juror’s actions to make a

Have you ever watched a crime T.V. show, and thought all of the technology and tactics were top of the line, brand new, and high tech? Well, unfortunately, that isn’t the case in real life. As people go on thinking that this is true, criminal cases are turned upside down all of the time due to a lack of common sense, and knowledge of Hollywood’s exaggeration of television. The C.S.I effect has had a tremendous impact on the Casey Anthony trial, this is due to a lack of forensic evidence, and a biased

These scenes dramatize the lab technician’s work and make it seem intriguing and thrilling. This results in the intense obsession of viewers and their conviction that the images presented in these scenes are representative real life. Dante Mancini also refers to what is known as the strong prosecutor’s effect in his article “The ‘CSI Effect’ in an Actual Juror Sample: Why Crime Show Genre May Matter”. The strong prosecutor’s effect, as Mancini describes it, is one aspect of the CSI effect referring to the expectations jurors who frequently watch crime shows have for forensic evidence (Mancini 544). There are clearly many different aspects and impacts of the CSI effects that can be positive or negative.

In Jury Decision Making: The State of the Science, Dennis Devine provides a thorough examination of empirical literature related to the factors shaping juror and jury decision making and proposes a comprehensive theoretical approach to understanding the complex processes involved. Devine is an assistant professor with the Department of Psychology at Indiana University—Purdue University at Indianapolis with an expertise in jury decision-making practices. This text is a response to research and theoretical models of juror- and jury-level decision making that provide valuable insight but lack an integrative approach. As such, the purpose of this text is to examine extant research and theoretical perspectives and to consolidate this information

Prosecutors claim that shows like CSI are causing jurors to request extensive evidence that doesn’t exist in real life or help prove cases. Legal experts are concerned that fact and fiction may be getting confused in the minds of the juries. They fear that when jurors are not provided with the CSI quality testing and technology that they see on TV, murderers may be more likely to be released back into civilization. Acquitted and free, those murders could potentially continue to kill without ever being convicted, but is “The CSI Effect” actually

Many T.V shows come on and influence the public that the things that take place on these shows are real. There is Law in Order SVU, 24, Bones and our favorite CSI that make people think that countless cases are open and close do to outrageous finding of D&A traces. The CSI Effect is a theory that criminals are getting smarter. These shows give out numerous tactics on how many cases are cracked and suspects are arrested. The CSI Effect also results in various hang juries and miss trials due to lack of evidence. The jury is starting to need more evidence, because the influence they have from watching these television shows.

Holmgren and Fordham looked into the CSI effect on jurors in Canada and Australia to see if they have unrealistic expectations when it comes to forensic evidence. They used college students who were eligible for jury duty in Canada and in Australia the used people who had already been selected for jury duty. To obtain the results they used surveys for both groups to measure their view habits and verdicts, along with interviews for the Australian participant. The results showed that while some are influenced by their viewing habits in terms of forensic evidence it didn’t have the results that they were expecting

“Which is when the jury expect more forensic evidence to convict defendants of crimes, evidence which isn’t always there. Yet, the question we ask ourselves is still, “Is “the CSI Effect real or is it something different all together?” Let’s find out together… In June, July, and August of 2006, a written

A one-way ANOVA analysis of variance displays an expressive contrast in mean verdict between types of evidence, F (2, 94) = 8.68, p = .00, n = .16 (see Figure 1). No difference was disclosed in the Tukey post hoc test including jury verdict with circumstantial evidence (M = 5.06, SD = 1.08) comparing to the jury verdict with circumstantial evidence, an eyewitness and a discredited eyewitness (M = 4.50, SD = 1.41), p = .17. Nonetheless, jury verdict with circumstantial evidence had a mean verdict that was less guilty from the jury verdict with circumstantial evidence and an eyewitness (M = 5.83, SD = 1.29) p = .04. Jury verdict with circumstantial evidence and an eyewitness had a mean verdict that was more guilty from the jury verdict with circumstantial

There is also the impact on the general public as a whole. For instance, those watch police investigation dramas on television is generally their only source of knowledge on how the process works. “Individuals take information they already have, simplify the complexity of an issue, and derive a steadfast conclusion” (Stevens, 2010 pp. 6-7). What this means is that common people look at a problem and make an instant resolution or in other words, make a prediction without knowing all the evidence or going through the deductive process. Individuals see the repetition in the dramas leading them to assume what is going to happen. The thoughts of these individuals are the ultimate building blocks to the CSI Effect. What is has ultimately come down to is that “the public has views shows that have hypothetically solved real-life cases before the actual cases have gotten to trial, so some jurors believe they have gained ‘insight’ from the media’s amateur sleuthing” (Ramsland, 2006, pp.

Whereas the litigation explosion may have resonated with a societal anxiety about relying on law too heavily, the CSI effect would seem to resonate with anxieties about using law too little, increasingly abrogating its truth-producing function to science. Whereas the litigation explosion may have articulated fears of hyperlexis, the CSI effect would seem to give voice to fears of what we might call “hyperscientia”—too much science” (Cole & Dioso-Villa, 2009). Therefore I can’t determine if jurors are basing their decisions to convict because of this

To predict a juror’s attitude, the juror’s age is multiplied by w, the Gender score by x, the Education score by y, and the Occupation score by z. These results are then added together. This gives the final sum, CV, which is the predicted attitude for that juror. Since the distribution of attitudes in the population is known, the equation enables one to decide whether a given juror should be challenged off the jury by seeing where his or her score falls in that distribution. The equation can be used to compile the predicted attitude index for each juror under consideration, or alternatively, the data can be used to construct profiles of what relatively positive and negative jurors look like (Berry,

The topic that I had researched about being “The CSI Effect- Does It Still Exist” which was written by Donald E. Shelton. In a study conducted by Shelton (2009), an honorable judge and author, it was found that per responses of a 2006 week after week Nielsen rating: 30 million people viewed CSI on one night. 70 million viewed no less than one of the three CSI show and 40 million watched two other forensic dramas, Without a Trace and Cold Case (p. 34). The significance of this study is that it demonstrates exactly what number of people watch these criminal investigations show all the time and this is useful in deciding how far-reaching the CSI effect is. Based on these reactions a later study was directed in which they found that “in the “each

In order to assess whether jurors should be allowed to consult the internet and social media, there are a number of considerations to be made. Firstly, it is essential to understand the external influences, which may be imposed upon the jury. Looking for information on-line and using search engines such as “Google” have become a habitual practice in the modern world. Jurors may be tempted to carry out their own research into the case to expand their knowledge, ensuring they are making the correct decision. Studies have shown that conducting internet research allows a juror to find out media accounts of the case, physical or other factual evidence, expert opinions, personal information on the parties involved including their criminal history, and the