Television is a prominent aspect of popular culture. Whether TV viewers believe it or not, the mind can be morphed by what is shown in all types of television shows, reigning true especially in crime dramas. Recently, with the rise of these crime dramas on TV, the effect is increasing. Crime drama viewers are becoming “educated” through watching the shows. Some of these television-educated people are being called to jury duty and are going with a false sense of knowledge. This summoning to be jurors is causing what is known as the CSI Effect. The CSI Effect is the TV education that the public, including potential jurors, have; meaning that there is a fictionalized sense of how crime investigation and the justice system works. Although benefiting
…show more content…
The Vice President of the National District Attorneys Association, Josh Marquis, said, “Jurors now expect us to have a DNA test for just about every case. They expect us to have the most advanced technology possible, and they expect it to look like it does on television.” Even when presented evidence that is bloody and hearing the defendant was at the crime scene, the jury still will refute the evidence because no DNA testing was done. To the prosecution, the evidence was a shoe in to be accepted but because of fictionalization of DNA testing on crime dramas, the evidence was not sufficient. Joseph Lavin, a defense attorney from New Jersey said, “Jurors can ask questions of the judge while in deliberations, and they’re asking about what they see as missing evidence. They want to know where the fingerprints are or the DNA. If it’s not there, they want to know why.” Take CSI: Crime Scene Investigation for example. The investigators seem to be able to lift a fingerprint off of whatever surface and at every crime scene. Because viewers see this so frequently, the mind begins to assume that it is the norm for an investigation. ***ask for help about siting here*** …show more content…
Mock juries are becoming a more common tactic among lawyers. Before the actual trial, lawyers will present the case in hopes of drawing out potential issues a real jury, under the CSI Effect, would have (American Bar Association). Another way to manage this problem is making blanket statement in the opening and closing remarks. The prosecution can make statements that address the absence of scientific evidence. In doing so, it helps to draw the jury’s minds away from demanding DNA testing and fingerprint analysis (American Bar Association). In addition, when trial lawyers present evidence exhibits, doing so in a high-technological manner may impress, and potentially influence, a younger jury (American Bar Association). Though managing the CSI Effect comes in a more extensive list, these tactics are a start to pulling the jury in a trial case away from the CSI
The Vice President of the National District Attorneys Association, Josh Marquis, said, “Jurors now expect us to have a DNA test for just about every case. They expect us to have the most advanced technology possible, and they expect it to look like it does on television.” Even when presented evidence that is bloody and hearing the defendant was at the crime scene, the jury still will refute the evidence because no DNA testing was done. To the prosecution, the evidence was a shoe in to be accepted but because of fictionalization of DNA testing on crime dramas, the evidence was not sufficient. Joseph Lavin, a defense attorney from New Jersey said, “Jurors can ask questions of the judge while in deliberations, and they’re asking about what they see as missing evidence. They want to know where the fingerprints are or the DNA. If it’s not there, they want to know why.” Take CSI: Crime Scene Investigation for example. The investigators seem to be able to lift a fingerprint off of whatever surface and at every crime scene. Because viewers see this so frequently, the mind begins to assume that it is the norm for an investigation. ***ask for help about siting here*** …show more content…
Mock juries are becoming a more common tactic among lawyers. Before the actual trial, lawyers will present the case in hopes of drawing out potential issues a real jury, under the CSI Effect, would have (American Bar Association). Another way to manage this problem is making blanket statement in the opening and closing remarks. The prosecution can make statements that address the absence of scientific evidence. In doing so, it helps to draw the jury’s minds away from demanding DNA testing and fingerprint analysis (American Bar Association). In addition, when trial lawyers present evidence exhibits, doing so in a high-technological manner may impress, and potentially influence, a younger jury (American Bar Association). Though managing the CSI Effect comes in a more extensive list, these tactics are a start to pulling the jury in a trial case away from the CSI