Forensic Evidence Analysis

Nearly anyone you ask would be familiar with the television show CSI. The crime lab is colorful and high-tech with all of the fun toys and machines that analysts use to test the ever abundant amount of forensic evidence from every crime scene. It makes for an exciting drama that you cannot help but get immersed in—it also gives us a false illusion, however, creating what has been dubbed as the “CSI effect” (Baskin, 2011). This effect describes the idea that crime shows such as CSI generate unreal expectations, making viewers believe that forensic evidence should be existent in all criminal trials, therefore affecting their overall perspective on a case (Baskin, 2011). But in reality, forensic labs are not that glamorous. In fact, the

One of several errors in the trial was a reckless omission by a forensic scientist who testified for the prosecution. Semen was found on the victim’s body, the scientist testified, and Dominguez’s blood type matched the semen sample, meaning he could have been the perpetrator. The scientist did not tell the jury, however, that two-thirds of men in America would have matched that sample. Dominguez was convicted and sentenced to nine years in prison. He was released after serving four years and sought DNA testing at his own expense. The tests proved his innocence. His case is one of many in which limited forensic science or wrong forensic testimony has led to wrongful convictions.

Their decisions in the conviction or acquittal process are also affected. Research has shown the CSI Effect has a possible pro-defense bias, in that jurors are less likely to convict without the presence of some sort of forensic evidence. Some studies show actors in the criminal justice system are changing their tactics, as if this effect has a significant influence, causing them to request unnecessary crime lab tests and expert testimonies (Alldredge, 2015).

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

Using the example of the case of Damon Thibodaux, he was taken for questioning after a girl who they were last seen with went missing. She was found strangled and naked (Leo, 2008). A homicide officer took over the case, and Thibodaux was interrogated for several hours. Although Thibodaux repeatedly said he knew nothing about the murder, the interrogation kept going, eventually the officer was able to record a statement from Thibodaux pleading guilty of consensual and non-consensual sex with the victim, beating, and assassinating her. Thibodaux was condemned to death, and was to spend fifteen years on death row and sixteen years in jail before DNA examination confirmed that he was not guilty (Kassin, 2013). Thibodauxs exoneration proceeding concluded that fatigue and exhaustion from the overnight search for the girl, the long interrogation, psychological vulnerability, and fear of the death penalty led to the false confession by Thibodaux (Leo, 2008). This case is a great example of

30 years after being convicted in the rape and murder of an 11 year-old girl, two mentally disabled half-brothers were declared innocent and released. McCollum, 50, had spent 30 years on death row and Leon Brown, 46 was serving a life sentence. McCollum and Brown who were 19 and 15 at the time were first arrested because of suspicion cast on them by a local teenager who had consider them outsiders. McCollum was questioned with no lawyers present and after 5 hours of questioning he eventually made up a story and signed a confession so that the investigators would let him go home. Brown, after being told that his half-brother had confessed and that he would severely punished if he didn’t cooperate he also signed a confession. They had both initially received death sentences but after new trials were ordered by the State Supreme Court, Mr. Brown was convicted only of

On June 12, 1994 a horrible crime caught the attention of millions of people in America. The bodies of Nicole Brown and Ronald Lyle Goldman were found dead at around 12:10 am. O.J. Simpson’s ex-wife Nicole Brown, had been stabbed multiple times in the head and neck, the wound to her neck was fatal. O.J. Simpson was the first suspect in this double murder case. The O.J. Simpson trial lasted more than eight months in Los Angeles, California. There was crucial evidence that implicated Nicole’s ex-husband. A bloody trail found on Nicole’s house, as well as, in Simpson’s white Bronco, bloody shoe footprints, a bloody pair of socks in Simpson’s house, and a glove found on O.J. Simpson’s property with his DNA. However, Johnnie Cochran Simpson’s lawyer argued that the laboratory procedures were done inaccurately, and he also alleged that the prosecutors were been racist against his defendant.

In the 1966 controversial court case of Sam Sheppard, the innocent verdict correctly acquitted him due to physical evidence, no motive, and another likely suspect. Sam Sheppard was wrongly convicted for the murder of his wife. This is just one example of someone who was wrongly convicted, hundreds of people receive the same fate each

Trial one happened on October 18, 1954 in the Cleveland Courtroom led by 70 years old Judge Edward Blythin. Popular journalists came to the Cleveland for the trial. A columnist and famous Tv host, Dorothy Kilgallen, asked the judge during the break about the case and the judge replied, “He’s guilty as hell.” (Sheppardaccount. (n.d.). Retrieved November 21, 2016, from http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/sheppard/sheppardaccount.html). Judge’s statement shows that from the evidences, he knew that Sheppard was guilty. As the court started to choose jurors, almost every jurors knew about this case and this is why the judge ordered to move the dates on court at the end of the year. One of the newspaper in Cleveland published each of the jurors name and their photos. Which made things harder for jurors. The processed of this case begun on November 3, 2016. Media started to quiet down about this case, so the judge ordered to continue. The juror was selected as seven men and four women.

charges were mysteriously dropped and the case remains unsolved. Early on in the trial as with

Good morning Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury. For the past several weeks you have heard testimony from the defense stating that their client is innocent of murdering Mr. Wallace, a 24 year old man that was shot and killed in the early morning of March 9, 1997, as he was leaving a music industry party. He was riding in the front passenger seat of a Chevrolet Suburban when another vehicle pulled up beside his and someone opened fire. According to autopsy reports he was shot four times. The medical expert stated the bullet that killed Mr. Wallace was the bullet that entered his right hip and ripped through several organs, including his liver, heart and lung. The other bullets struck Wallace in his left forearm, his back and his left thigh. At the time of his death, he had no drugs or alcohol in his system. I have proven that the defendant murdered Mr. Wallace for no apparent reason. It is up to you to decide hold the defendant

The main reason for the CSI effect being bad is simply because the jury expects high level of evidence to be brought forth when in many cases all that evidence is not available to them and many of the science that they show in shows such as CSI, criminal Minds, NCIS, Law and Order and many more does not even exist. These jurors have unrealistic demands for physical

Based on our findings, jurors were more likely to find a defendant guilty than not guilty even without scientific evidence if the victim or other witnesses testified, except in the case of rape (Shelton, 2008). According to my sources all three can’t determine whether or not there is a true “CSI Effect”. The Stanford Law Review’s conclusion on the topic is very straight forward. “The discourse among legal actors about the supposed CSI effect is rife with lamentations of the law’s purported inability to provide proof with the strength that jurors supposedly desire.

The CSI effect is the influence of crime dramas, and forensics related television shows on the public. Shows like CSI and NCIS depicts crimes that almost always produce an abundance of evidence that can be presented in court. Influence from these shows are leading jurors to demands evidence in real life cases. The CSI effect is concerning to the justice system because it places a greater burden on both the prosecution and forensic scientist. The CSI effects impacts not only jurors, but it also impacts public perception. The CSI effect as also causes the media to expect far more evidence than both the prosecution and forensic scientists can produce. The apprehension regarding the CSI effect in relation to the judicial system is a valid concern.

On the other hand, the case of Daniel Taylor, who was convicted of murdering two people also, had a solid Alibi with paperwork and witnesses to support his alibi it seemed almost impossible for the jury to find him guilty. But on “December morning in 1992, 17 year old gang member, Daniel, confessed to a double murder committed two weeks earlier in the Uptown neighborhood. (Chicago Tribune)”. The case was built upon Taylor’s confession.