Fighting the 'CSI' effect
By: LAURIE MASON SCHROEDER AND BEN FINLEY
Bucks County Courier Times
Police and prosecutors say fighting crime is more difficult because jurors believe what they see on TV. One defense attorney says the so-called CSI effect is an "insult" to jurors.
It was a gruesome and bloody crime scene, as stabbings tend to be. To solve this murder, the detectives needed to match the stab wound to the knife.
Fast.
Luckily, they had a tube of plumbing caulk handy. Pumped into the gash, it produced an exact replica of the knife, which the killer had conveniently kept as a souvenir.
Within the hour (not counting commercials) the murderer was in handcuffs, and surely headed for death row. The evidence against him was overwhelming.
And completely impossible.
Every week for nearly 10 years, millions of viewers have tuned in to "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation," TV's most popular police procedural show.
Since the first airing, police and prosecutors have laughed about the show's over-the-top crime-solving methods and fictional high-tech gadgetry.
But with more and more juries demanding fingerprints, DNA and other forensic evidence before they'll find a suspect guilty, those in law enforcement say they have to take the so-called "CSI effect" seriously, and fight against it.
"On one show, they got a fingerprint off the edge of a dime," said Upper Southampton Detective Craig Rudisill. "Oh, come on."
Experts are divided on whether the CSI effect is a real phenomenon, or whether police and prosecutors are using it as an excuse when they lose a case.
Defense attorneys say more frequent not-guilty verdicts are a byproduct of our increasingly skeptical society, the result of an era where fact checking is easy and instant on the Internet.
But prosecutors say "CSI" has a definite presence in the courtroom these days. So much so, that lawyers now routinely ask prospective jurors what TV shows they watch when they pick a jury.
"They definitely come into the courtroom with heightened expectations because of what they see on TV," said Robert James, a deputy Bucks County district attorney. "No matter how thoroughly a crime is investigated, what comes out in court isn't going to be anywhere near what they show on 'CSI.' Most cases don't have any forensic evidence."
And forensic evidence is what juries want. When they found the defendant not guilty in a recent Bensalem vehicular homicide case, jurors polled after the verdict said one reason they acquitted the man was because police didn't test the steering wheel for his DNA.
Their answer frustrated detectives, who believed they had plenty of evidence to secure a conviction.
"I have a CSI speech every time I get on the stand," said Bensalem Detective Glenn Vandegrift. "When I'm explaining what I did at the scene, I go into how it's not like it is on CSI. You can't get fingerprints off of everything.
"Years ago, I didn't have to make that speech," he said. "They took it at face value. Now you have to justify why you didn't find certain evidence. Because on television - they always find it."
Not every criminal leaves behind his DNA, despite what CSI technicians accomplish on the show. Still, jurors and crime victims are demanding that police try to find it.
Rudisill, the Upper Southampton detective, said a victim recently asked him to swab his entire car for DNA after a thief broke in and stole $2 worth of change. That would be too cost-prohibitive, with officers having to sort out the DNA of everyone who'd ever been in that car, Rudisill said.
"Before, people said: 'Wow, you can really do that?' Now it's, 'How come you can't do that?' "
Jurors also believe that DNA testing can be done within days, or even hours. In reality, the average test takes about eight months, according to Major Ken Hill of the Pennsylvania State Police.
Because of budget cuts and an ever-increasing workload, the state police - who do the majority of DNA tests for local police departments - have accrued a backlog of evidence to be tested for DNA.
To fight the "CSI" effect, prosecutors are now careful to show jurors that tests have been done, even when the results are negative. In drug cases, for example, a detective will often take the stand to testify that the small glassine bags dealers use to sell crack were dusted for fingerprints, even though those tests are usually fruitless.
"We never find usable fingerprints on those bags," James said. "Multiple people handle them. But we have to show the jury that we tried."
Earlier this year, Bensalem police arrested four men from Florida who were accused of running a nationwide identity theft ring. Vandegrift said he knew there was a slim chance he'd get prints off the dozens of credit cards found in the group's possession, but he took them anyway, anticipating the jury's expectation.
"More crimes are solved by old-fashioned police work," Vandegrift said. "And they think police work in today's society is all technology. It's not. A lot of it is pounding the pavement and interviews."
Heather Costello teaches a law class at Bucks County Community College. She said "CSI" and similar shows are doing a disservice to the justice system.
"It's giving the public this idea that if there is no DNA, the person can't be guilty," she said. "In reality, most cases are won and lost on circumstantial evidence."
Advertisement Consider a rape case, she said. Most of the cases are he-said, she-said, without DNA evidence and sometimes without visible physical trauma to the victim.
"And the public is like, 'Where is the DNA?' " she said. "A lot of people are buying into the idea and expecting it."
Sara Jane Phillips, a visiting assistant professor at the University of Texas-Arlington's department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, studies juries. She said the "CSI" effect is not a new phenomenon.
"Any attorney knows when seating a jury, they come in the door with preconceived ideas," Phillips said. "It is then your job to figure out what those ideas are and see if there will be a bias that cannot be overcome."
She said defense attorneys do, and should, take advantage of juror skepticism. The concept of finding a suspect guilty beyond a reasonable doubt can translate to having no doubt at all, when jurors believe that scientific tests should be able to prove every prosecutorial theory.
"As a defense attorney, you will want to poke as many holes in the state's case and create as much doubt as possible," Phillips said. "If the defense can suggest that the prosecution was negligent by not getting fingerprints or hair analysis, then you can win your case. It would also make sense for a defense attorney to push more and more cases to trial instead of plea bargaining."
Before becoming a professor, Phillips was an assistant DA in Dallas County, Texas, which has the highest exoneration rate in the nation. She said prosecutors there learned that they wouldn't win unless they showed jurors forensic evidence.
"Juries are now looking to absolutely have DNA before they will convict in a rape case. Trials in those cases appear to be avoided for that reason," Phillips said.
Rebecca Hayes-Smith, a professor at Central Michigan University who has studied the issue, said one effect of the concerns over TV's influence is that lawyers now discuss the differences between TV and real life to help jurors recognize poor quality forensic evidence.
She said the problem is not as widespread as some believe.
"Overall, it seems that the CSI effect is a media-perpetuated phenomenon which has led criminal justice professionals to be concerned with the general population having unrealistic expectations of them in their jobs. While it may have a tiny influence, it does not have more influence than the traditional biases surrounding racism and sexism that are prevalent in our society."
Doylestown defense attorney Craig Penglase, a former prosecutor, said prosecutors use the "CSI" effect as an excuse. He called it an "insult" to jurors.
"The 'CSI' effect is a rationale that claims that jurors will replace their common sense and life experience with the fiction that is squeezed into an hour-long TV show. This is nonsense," Penglase said.
To suggest that there is such a thing as the "CSI" effect is to say that jurors are too stupid to differentiate between reality and fiction, he said. Penglase said jurors are smart enough to know when police haven't investigated a crime properly.
"Jurors will not tolerate a police investigation that is incomplete because of laziness or incompetence," Penglase said. "When the police fail to take the time to collect fingerprint evidence or DNA evidence, or to examine a firearm or other weapon for forensic evidence, they are sending a message to the jury that they either didn't have time to correctly complete the investigation, or didn't care enough to complete the investigation."
Penglase said there's nothing unfair about a defense lawyer pointing out the lack of forensic evidence in a case.
"What's unfair is when police fail at their job, and do not collect necessary evidence," he said.
Princeton attorney and former federal judge Stephen Orlofsky has been on both sides of the jury box, after recently serving as a juror in a New Jersey drug trial. He said he's convinced the CSI effect is real.
"As a trial judge, I would meet with jurors after they completed their deliberations to discuss the process, how it could be improved, and solicit their impressions. What I noticed, especially in criminal cases, was that they often wondered why law enforcement had not obtained fingerprints, hair samples or other forensic evidence. They were clearly influenced by what they saw on 'CSI,' and believed that all criminal prosecutions involved high-tech cutting-edge technology."
Orlofsky said his time as a juror confirmed that impression.
"My fellow jurors wondered why, for example, there was no fingerprint evidence. The reason was obvious. The case was based on the police officer's personal observations of the defendant, and there were no issues involving the identity of the defendant."
James, of the DA's office, called CSI "pure science fiction," and said he'll continue to ask jurors to set aside what they've seen on TV.
"What they do on that show is so far from reality," he said. "It's becoming our job to educate the public about this at trials."
It was a gruesome and bloody crime scene, as stabbings tend to be. To solve this murder, the detectives needed to match the stab wound to the knife.
Fast.
Luckily, they had a tube of plumbing caulk handy. Pumped into the gash, it produced an exact replica of the knife, which the killer had conveniently kept as a souvenir.
Within the hour (not counting commercials) the murderer was in handcuffs, and surely headed for death row. The evidence against him was overwhelming.
And completely impossible.
Every week for nearly 10 years, millions of viewers have tuned in to "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation," TV's most popular police procedural show.
Since the first airing, police and prosecutors have laughed about the show's over-the-top crime-solving methods and fictional high-tech gadgetry.
But with more and more juries demanding fingerprints, DNA and other forensic evidence before they'll find a suspect guilty, those in law enforcement say they have to take the so-called "CSI effect" seriously, and fight against it.
"On one show, they got a fingerprint off the edge of a dime," said Upper Southampton Detective Craig Rudisill. "Oh, come on."
Experts are divided on whether the CSI effect is a real phenomenon, or whether police and prosecutors are using it as an excuse when they lose a case.
Defense attorneys say more frequent not-guilty verdicts are a byproduct of our increasingly skeptical society, the result of an era where fact checking is easy and instant on the Internet.
But prosecutors say "CSI" has a definite presence in the courtroom these days. So much so, that lawyers now routinely ask prospective jurors what TV shows they watch when they pick a jury.
"They definitely come into the courtroom with heightened expectations because of what they see on TV," said Robert James, a deputy Bucks County district attorney. "No matter how thoroughly a crime is investigated, what comes out in court isn't going to be anywhere near what they show on 'CSI.' Most cases don't have any forensic evidence."
And forensic evidence is what juries want. When they found the defendant not guilty in a recent Bensalem vehicular homicide case, jurors polled after the verdict said one reason they acquitted the man was because police didn't test the steering wheel for his DNA.
Their answer frustrated detectives, who believed they had plenty of evidence to secure a conviction.
"I have a CSI speech every time I get on the stand," said Bensalem Detective Glenn Vandegrift. "When I'm explaining what I did at the scene, I go into how it's not like it is on CSI. You can't get fingerprints off of everything.
"Years ago, I didn't have to make that speech," he said. "They took it at face value. Now you have to justify why you didn't find certain evidence. Because on television - they always find it."
Not every criminal leaves behind his DNA, despite what CSI technicians accomplish on the show. Still, jurors and crime victims are demanding that police try to find it.
Rudisill, the Upper Southampton detective, said a victim recently asked him to swab his entire car for DNA after a thief broke in and stole $2 worth of change. That would be too cost-prohibitive, with officers having to sort out the DNA of everyone who'd ever been in that car, Rudisill said.
"Before, people said: 'Wow, you can really do that?' Now it's, 'How come you can't do that?' "
Jurors also believe that DNA testing can be done within days, or even hours. In reality, the average test takes about eight months, according to Major Ken Hill of the Pennsylvania State Police.
Because of budget cuts and an ever-increasing workload, the state police - who do the majority of DNA tests for local police departments - have accrued a backlog of evidence to be tested for DNA.
To fight the "CSI" effect, prosecutors are now careful to show jurors that tests have been done, even when the results are negative. In drug cases, for example, a detective will often take the stand to testify that the small glassine bags dealers use to sell crack were dusted for fingerprints, even though those tests are usually fruitless.
"We never find usable fingerprints on those bags," James said. "Multiple people handle them. But we have to show the jury that we tried."
Earlier this year, Bensalem police arrested four men from Florida who were accused of running a nationwide identity theft ring. Vandegrift said he knew there was a slim chance he'd get prints off the dozens of credit cards found in the group's possession, but he took them anyway, anticipating the jury's expectation.
"More crimes are solved by old-fashioned police work," Vandegrift said. "And they think police work in today's society is all technology. It's not. A lot of it is pounding the pavement and interviews."
Heather Costello teaches a law class at Bucks County Community College. She said "CSI" and similar shows are doing a disservice to the justice system.
"It's giving the public this idea that if there is no DNA, the person can't be guilty," she said. "In reality, most cases are won and lost on circumstantial evidence."
"And the public is like, 'Where is the DNA?' " she said. "A lot of people are buying into the idea and expecting it."
Sara Jane Phillips, a visiting assistant professor at the University of Texas-Arlington's department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, studies juries. She said the "CSI" effect is not a new phenomenon.
"Any attorney knows when seating a jury, they come in the door with preconceived ideas," Phillips said. "It is then your job to figure out what those ideas are and see if there will be a bias that cannot be overcome."
She said defense attorneys do, and should, take advantage of juror skepticism. The concept of finding a suspect guilty beyond a reasonable doubt can translate to having no doubt at all, when jurors believe that scientific tests should be able to prove every prosecutorial theory.
"As a defense attorney, you will want to poke as many holes in the state's case and create as much doubt as possible," Phillips said. "If the defense can suggest that the prosecution was negligent by not getting fingerprints or hair analysis, then you can win your case. It would also make sense for a defense attorney to push more and more cases to trial instead of plea bargaining."
Before becoming a professor, Phillips was an assistant DA in Dallas County, Texas, which has the highest exoneration rate in the nation. She said prosecutors there learned that they wouldn't win unless they showed jurors forensic evidence.
"Juries are now looking to absolutely have DNA before they will convict in a rape case. Trials in those cases appear to be avoided for that reason," Phillips said.
Rebecca Hayes-Smith, a professor at Central Michigan University who has studied the issue, said one effect of the concerns over TV's influence is that lawyers now discuss the differences between TV and real life to help jurors recognize poor quality forensic evidence.
She said the problem is not as widespread as some believe.
"Overall, it seems that the CSI effect is a media-perpetuated phenomenon which has led criminal justice professionals to be concerned with the general population having unrealistic expectations of them in their jobs. While it may have a tiny influence, it does not have more influence than the traditional biases surrounding racism and sexism that are prevalent in our society."
Doylestown defense attorney Craig Penglase, a former prosecutor, said prosecutors use the "CSI" effect as an excuse. He called it an "insult" to jurors.
"The 'CSI' effect is a rationale that claims that jurors will replace their common sense and life experience with the fiction that is squeezed into an hour-long TV show. This is nonsense," Penglase said.
To suggest that there is such a thing as the "CSI" effect is to say that jurors are too stupid to differentiate between reality and fiction, he said. Penglase said jurors are smart enough to know when police haven't investigated a crime properly.
"Jurors will not tolerate a police investigation that is incomplete because of laziness or incompetence," Penglase said. "When the police fail to take the time to collect fingerprint evidence or DNA evidence, or to examine a firearm or other weapon for forensic evidence, they are sending a message to the jury that they either didn't have time to correctly complete the investigation, or didn't care enough to complete the investigation."
Penglase said there's nothing unfair about a defense lawyer pointing out the lack of forensic evidence in a case.
"What's unfair is when police fail at their job, and do not collect necessary evidence," he said.
Princeton attorney and former federal judge Stephen Orlofsky has been on both sides of the jury box, after recently serving as a juror in a New Jersey drug trial. He said he's convinced the CSI effect is real.
"As a trial judge, I would meet with jurors after they completed their deliberations to discuss the process, how it could be improved, and solicit their impressions. What I noticed, especially in criminal cases, was that they often wondered why law enforcement had not obtained fingerprints, hair samples or other forensic evidence. They were clearly influenced by what they saw on 'CSI,' and believed that all criminal prosecutions involved high-tech cutting-edge technology."
Orlofsky said his time as a juror confirmed that impression.
"My fellow jurors wondered why, for example, there was no fingerprint evidence. The reason was obvious. The case was based on the police officer's personal observations of the defendant, and there were no issues involving the identity of the defendant."
James, of the DA's office, called CSI "pure science fiction," and said he'll continue to ask jurors to set aside what they've seen on TV.
"What they do on that show is so far from reality," he said. "It's becoming our job to educate the public about this at trials."
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment