Law day presentation

The Effect

Susan ShanklesTPD Crime Lab Superintendent

Hon. Teresa GodoySuperior Court Judge & Former Prosecutor

CSI effect – Many definitions

The best-known definition states that CSI creates unreasonable expectations on the part of jurors, making it more difficult for prosecutors to obtain convictions.

The second definition, which runs contrary to the first, refers to the way that CSI raises the stature of scientific evidence to virtual infallibility, thus making scientific evidence impenetrable.

The final definition focuses on CSI's increasing lay interest in forensics and science. Thus, viewers who serve as jurors will be more interested in and able to follow scientific evidence. They may even become interested in academic training and careers in the forensics field.

CSI effect in the courtroom

Who does this “effect” affect? Police

Over-collect evidence; higher expectations of the value of evidence in solving a case

Attorneys Burden to request tests to cover all eventualities May dismiss certain cases for lack of forensic

evidence Juries

View a lack of forensic evidence as “reasonable doubt”

Hold forensic evidence as infallible or unrebuttable proof of guilt

Forensic Labs Cost overruns Backlogs

Juror PerspectiveExpect to see solid physical evidence indicating the defendantLikely to ignore circumstantial evidence

Always assume DNA evidence should be found at the sceneIf physical evidence is found, it is now much less likely to be questioned by jurors

CSI and the CourtroomExperts have claimed an incidence

of the “CSI effect” in courtroomsTrend in which TV shows increase the

expectations of victims’ and jury members’ concerning forensic evidence and the level of crime scene investigation

Evidence is being presented differently at trial

38 percent suffered at least one “CSI” acquittal or hung jury

70 percent voir dire on CSI (type shows)

72 percent believe that CSI has caused some jurors to believe that they have an “expertise” gained from watching CSI

Jurors demanding DNAIn a recent murder trial in Phoenix, a

bloody coat was introduced as evidence. It was not tested for DNA.

The jury informed the judge that testing was not performed on the coat even though it was not needed because the defendant admitted that the coat was his.

The judge then determined that “television had taught the jury what DNA tests were but didn’t teach them in what circumstances they can be used in”

Nielsen Ratings Sept. 1-8 200810. "Bones," Fox, 9.74

million viewers. 11. "The OT," Fox, 8.99 million viewers. 12. Republican Convention Coverage

(Thursday), NBC, 8.66 million 14. "NCIS," CBS, 8.17 million

viewers. 15. "Two and a Half Men," CBS, 7.83

million viewers. 16. "House," Fox, 7.75 million viewers. 17. "CSI: Crime Scene

Investigation," CBS, 7.27 million viewers.

Sure It Looks Cool But…

Science vs. Entertainment Truth doesn’t always make good

fiction Story lines need to be “jazzed” to

meet the current trends in entertainment

It’s all about the ratings, not the facts of the case

Dramatizations “clean up” the messy truth

More makeup and larger budgets Everything gets solved in an hour

Interesting Facts “40 percent of the ‘forensic science’

in these shows does not even exist. That’s why CSI won a Saturn Award for the best science fiction drama in 2004, beating out Buffy the Vampire Slayer.” –Jennifer Joyce, circuit attorney

The real Miami Forensic Crime Lab has stated that the way CSI-Miami portrays one case would bankrupt the budget for the entire year.

CSI MythsMyth 1: Laboratory Personnel

can examine evidence as soon as it gets to the lab

Usually takes months before time permits an examination of the evidence due to back logs and quality control procedures

Myth 2: One person can examine all types of

evidenceThere are few ‘generalists’ in today’s forensics

The expertise required for each section of forensics sometimes requires one piece of evidence to be examined by more than one individual

Myth 3: Fingerprints susceptible to testing and identification are

always foundFinding identifiable

fingerprints that can be collected and are of a high enough quality to do an automated search are rare

Normally fingerprint comparison must be done by ‘hand’

“I can get a print off the air”

Myth 4: Testing for drugs and chemicals in blood is quick and

easyNumerous drugs, botanicals, &

chemicals can be present in blood

Numerous instruments to identify these various compounds

Process often takes weeks or months to

complete

Myth 5: The cooperative crime

sceneThe ‘perfect’ evidence is rarely there

Technology has greatly improved evidence collection but no technological advancements can find nonexistent evidence

Time between occurrence and discovery of the crime is the biggest factor

Myth 6: The fully equipped crime lab TV forensic labs are always fully

equipped with the most up to date technology

Even the labs with the largest budgets cannot afford to have the same lab quality as the labs on TV dramas

Shortages occur with building space, funds, equipment and proficient personnel

The CSI Crime Lab

An Actual Crime Lab

Top 10 Reasons Forensic Science is Not

Like CSI 10. A forensic entomologist is never in charge. 9. Won't move to a new city to get better ratings. 8. Real forensic labs can afford light bulbs. 7. Hummers are not standard issue work vehicles. 6. DNA results take weeks, not minutes or hours. 5. Weapons are microscopes and test tubes - not

Glock 9s and Sig Sauer P229s 4. Not every sample gets run on the GC/MS. 3. Don’t interview suspects 2. Indoor crime scenes are very dirty and messy. 1. It takes longer than 1 hour to solve a case.

How Things Have Changed

No DNA- blood typing is as good as it got.

Fingerprint analysis was done completely by hand.

Databases for fingerprints/DNA didn’t exist.

Technology

Milestones in Forensic Science

Alphonse Bertillion: 1879—devised the first system of personal identification using body measurements.

Francis Galton: 1892—conducted the first definitive study of fingerprints and their classification.

Leone Lattes: 1901—developed a procedure to determine blood type from dried bloodstains

Edmond Locard: 1910—created one of the first forensic labs in Lyons, France. Also developed the Locard exchange principle.

Calvin Goddard: 1925—used a comparison microscope to determine if a particular gun fired a bullet.

J. Edgar Hoover: 1932—FBI forensic lab was created.

Dr. Alex Jeffries: 1985—created DNA typing or “fingerprinting.”

FBI: 1998-99—created IAFIS and CODIS

More Milestones…

Another Effect:Increased Public

Awareness of ForensicsSome people now look

forward to jury dutyBetter sense of

investigationsPopularized investigatory

science programsShifting demographics in

forensics field

Efforts to Minimize Potential EffectsIn Arizona prosecutors now use

"negative evidence witnesses" to try to assure jurors that it is not unusual for real crime-scene investigators to fail to find DNA, fingerprints and other evidence at crime scenes.

Prosecutors often question the jury about their TV viewing habits during voir dire.

Are You Interested in a Career in Forensic

Science?

Add CSI Summer School Video

Criminalist vs. Crime Scene Specialist

Thank You