1. Jones 1
Heather Jones
Mrs. Lester
Advanced Composition
6 October 2011
CSI Effect and Its Impact on Jurors
Nearly 26.6 million television viewers watched "CSI" during the 2004-2005 season,
where it was television’s number one show (Collins). People who tend to view shows that
involve drama and crime are more likely to have a higher expectation for forensic evidence in the
courtroom. Television shows like “CSI” make it harder to get convictions because of the lack of
observed evidence. What is the “CSI Effect” and how has it affected jurors’ decisions in the
courtroom?
The “CSI Effect” is thought to be one of the most serious issues that exist in the
courtroom today. An American criminologist, Monica Robbers, identifies the “CSI Effect” as a
phenomenon where jurors embrace unrealistic expectations of forensic evidence, along with
investigation techniques, and have an increased interest in the discipline of forensic science.
Jurors think crime scene investigations can be done so easily because television shows make it
seem as if evidence and DNA can be matched within a day. When a juror is picked for a trial he
or she is going to look for all the fancy equipment and evidence that they see on television in the
courtroom. William Harris states, “Collecting and analyzing DNA evidence tops the list of the
lab's forensic toolkit, and its ubiquity in shows like "CSI" and "Cold Case" has increased public
awareness to the point that many jurors in real-world courtrooms expect to see DNA evidence

2. Jones 2
presented -- whether a case calls for it or not”. When television programs show all types of
evidence and types of lab equipment used, jurors then expect to see that same exact vision or a
similar one of everything in the court room. Prosecutors really have a hard time proving a case
when jurors come in to a case expecting to see what they have seen on television, but it just
doesn’t work that way. Having the mindset of expecting to see the evidence or equipment can
easily cause the jury to acquit a case. The NPR states that the people who have a high
expectation for forensic evidence are frequent viewers of crime or drama television shows
(Rath).When the jury is picked and there are people in that jury who are frequent viewers of
those type of shows, the “CSI” effect is already in their head and they look for certain evidence
to prove the defendant did do the crime, but if that evidence isn’t there, then they automatically
say the person did not commit the crime in which they are being charged with. Jurors usually say
someone is guilty if the evidence is there, but sometimes the evidence just isn’t enough to
convict. The “CSI” effect is one of those things that really defines whether or not jurors know
what to look for in a realistic situation and how their decisions can impact others in the
courtroom.
The courtrooms as well as jurors’ decisions have been majorly impacted by the “CSI”
effect. Certain kinds of evidence are not evidence and prosecutors among the nation are spending
much of their time today explaining that to jurors (Durnal).Some jurors watch the televisions
shows full of crime and drama, and when it comes to solving cases on those shows, many
technological devices are used, and when jurors see that on television they automatically expect
to see it realistically in the courtroom. For example, if certain high technological tests are not
done within the case like they see on television jurors automatically think there is nothing
matching this person to a crime. It is much harder for prosecutors to win convictions when

3. Jones 3
scientific evidence is absent or irrelevant (Willing).Prosecutors’ jobs have been much harder
since the outcome of the “CSI” effect because they have to spend time explaining the difference
between evidence that is relevant and the evidence that is irrelevant to the case. Jurors already
know what they are looking for when they are picked for jury duty and in that case if they do not
see the forensic evidence they want, they are easily able to acquit the case and do not hesitate on
convictions. The believed idea that criminal science is fast, infallible, and always gets its man is
an unrealistic idea of what criminal science can deliver (Willing). When jurors come in with this
irrational mindset of how the courtroom really works, they are confused and probably do not
know what to think or do when actual evidence is shown to them. Jurors honestly do not know
that it can take awhile before actually catching the suspect of a crime, but with television shows
catching their man within an hour; jurors think it is the same thing in reality. The “CSI” effect
has caused many problems in the courtroom because it has brought unethical ideas into a place
where someone’s life is on the line and we still have no found a final solution to fix that.
To this day there are no solutions that have completely fixed the “CSI” effect. As a start
to fixing this problem the NAS committee claims that the United States should standardize tests
and certify forensic experts (Reagan).I think this would be a great idea because I think that some
forensic scientist do not know how to make it come across that the evidence they have found do
indeed mean that a certain person did commit a crime. The scientists have not been clear about if
a person’s evidence is there they did do it. Another fix the NAS thinks should be done is calling
for a separation between police work and science in the crime scene investigation, while
technicians are trained and only supervise the labs. (Temple-Raston) This fix would keep
everything separated to where the police would do the police work and the forensic scientists
would deal with the evidence themselves. Doing this would help keep all evidence together and

4. Jones 4
prohibit the contamination and misplacing of evidence. Donald Shelton, a chief judge of
Washtenaw County, Michigan, thinks that surveying people before they were selected for jury
duty was the best way to maybe dish out some people who could potentially be very familiar
with the “CSI” effect. I think taking people that do not watch much crime or drama shows would
make the best jurors because they would not really know what to look for and sometimes that
can be a good thing, but at others it can be bad. These people who do not watch the televisions
shows like “CSI” have a better chance at giving someone a much more fair trial than of someone
who is a frequent viewer. Many solutions to this day are still being made, but we will probably
never know if one of those will be chosen and used in the courtroom forever.
The outlook for the “CSI” effect tends to be ruining our court system because it is almost
as if evidence has not been found the defendant should be automatically freed. The debate of the
“CSI” effect will most likely continue on because the shows do not seem to be going anywhere
anytime soon (Farley). It will take a very long time for this effect to go away because there are so
many viewers all of which age from very young to very old. The jurors will not change what
they think should be in the courtroom unless television changes as well. Courts are starting to
rely on genetic analysis, where DNA has already freed about 232 wrong convicted among the
nation (Szustek).It seems as if the future for the courtroom will be all dependent on DNA
because that seems to be the thing that really ties somebody to a crime. Now days DNA is
becoming more popular in solving cases because it is one thing that can assure police and
forensic scientists that a person did commit the crime. Since jurors are expecting too much
scientific evidence; judges are beginning to issue instructions to warn them about what to really
expect (Rath). This is a good for the court room because it will allow jurors to go in with an open
mindset, instead of a mindset of evidence or no evidence. If there is evidence then the jurors will

5. Jones 5
say the person is guilty. Many experts in the legal field believe that jurors could potentially be
mixing fact with fiction and that lawyers should be able to strike out multiple jurors based on
their television habits.
When did we ever think that something like the “CSI effect” could be the determining
point of whether or not someone goes to jail? The need for forensic evidence now days is so
important that many criminals can be walking free it is absent in a trial. Not only is the “CSI”
effect hurting defendants, it is also making it very hard for prosecutors to prepare a strong case.
The only solution to this may be to just survey out the jurors that have a frequent television
viewing of crime and drama shows. The “CSI” effect will probably never go away because the
drama and crime shows will still be there. When the shows do eventually go away we may see an
end to the “CSI” effect.