Jurys and CSI

[Hortiz]

Do you think CSI has made forensic evidence less compelling to jurors when the evidence isn't all whizbang slam dunk like it is in shows like CSI?


P.S. Forgive the whizbang slam dunk couldn't think of anything better to describe the kind of crap they pull off in CSI

[Hortiz]

Actually let me reword that. Do you think jurors expectations of evidence is elevated because of shows like CSI?

[Jay7376]

I have not had any experience with a jury trial, however I can tell you that it has made my job more difficult out on the street. Often a victim to a crime, home/vehicle B&E etc, will think that I can pull latent prints off of any surface. They will get upset when no prints are obtained. I have to explain to them that it is not as easy as they see on TV.

[Jay7376]

crap...no edit button...

The popularity of shows such as CSI have also helped when interviewing a suspect. My favorite line of questioning often goes something like this:

Me: you've seen the TV show CSI right?
Bad guy (BG): Yeah
Me: So you know about all the high tech things we can do to get your prints off of the (place name of object here)?
BG: yeah
Me: so, when I send the (object) to the lab, and they pull prints off of it, are they going to match it to you? Remember, we can get perfect prints off of everything.
After a little bit more questioning, the BG thinks we got him, so he gives it up.

Obviously, this tactic only works if your BG is not too bright (most of them) and the crime is not that serious (vehicle B&E, baggy of weed, etc).

[Kimble]

Actually let me reword that. Do you think jurors expectations of evidence is elevated because of shows like CSI?

I recall during a Intro to Forensic Science course I took in grad school a guest lecturer discussing a case where a man had raped a woman. All evidence pointed to the guy being the offender, but the jury voted "not guilty" because there was no DNA evidence presented by the prosecutor. What people in the general public may not realize is that DNA evidence, while helpful, may not be present in each and every crime. This is sometimes called "CSI affect", because the people who see shows like this think that LE has all these tools and skills available to them all the time, and that it takes less than an hour (with commercials) to get all the testing of evidence completed and the bad guy convicted, which is simply not reality.

[k9dan]

I actually had a defense lawyer bring up CSI during a jury trial. He wanted to know why we did not get prints from a bag of crushed psuedoephedrine. He said without the prints on the bag, there was no evidence the bag belonged to his client. He played it up to the jury that we did not use all the resources available and attempt to get the prints. I guess the fact the bag was in his clients pants was not enough proof.

[bdbaskar]

I can't answer the question concerning the jury trials, but I will add my own story:

A few weeks ago we got a complaint call about a couple's house being "rolled" with toilet paper. We got there and they told us that the dispatcher had advised them not to touch anything. :rolleyes: We take all the info needed for our report and begin small talk with them. While talking, my FTO starts to lean on the gate to their chain link fence. All of a sudden the husband yells, "DON"T TOUCH THAT!" It startles my FTO and he asks why. The man says, "So you can get prints." My FTO said, "I don't think the detectives would appreciate us very much if we called them out to get prints for TP. Besides, there may not be any prints available." He said, "There has to be...that's the only way into the yard."

So CSI has definitely affected our job.

[Creeker]

I can answer this question with an emphatical YES!!

Not only do Juries expect more evidence than most LE Agencies are able to collect, they also expect LE Agencies to do MORE with what they get. Juries don't hear about the expense of "Colloidal Gold" processing, nor the horrific time and manpower costs that it takes to perform some of the tests that will likely turn out "inconclusive" in the end.

How they are able to get DNA from a siingle blood droplet while we can't get it from our lab on a blood soaked blouse is beyond me...

Another terrible thing that these BS shows have produced are the expectation of total results from the most miniscule piece of what may or may not be evidence. Well... I guess the fact that many of the things they do on the show are illustrated improperly and/or cannot be done with the equipment they are using... if they can be done at all. I haven't done it for a year or so, but there are some things I have seen on those shows that either could not, or would not be done.

A side affect of the shows is that now Chiefs and administrator types within the agency have come to believe the shows hype, and are expecting some of the same results that juries do.

If there were one positive thing to say about those shows it would be that there is far more interest in that type of work than there was before... indeed they seem to have pushed Crime Scene work into cult-like popularity, which I am highly suspect of... someone pulled aside the curtain and we are no longer the "Black Magic" brigades that we once were, mixing our magic elixir's in the shadows.