The Csi Effect: Popular Fiction about Forensic Science Affects the Public’s Expectations about Real Forensic Science

Two of a number of hypotheses loosely referred to as the CSI Effect suggest that the television program and its spin-offs, which wildly exaggerate and glorify forensic science, affect the public, and in turn affect trials either by (a) burdening the prosecution by creating greater expectations about forensic science than can be delivered or (b) burdening the defense by creating exaggerated faith in the capabilities and reliability of the forensic sciences. The present study tested these hypotheses by presenting to mock jurors a simulated trial transcript that included the testimony of a forensic scientist. The case for conviction was relatively weak, unless the expert testimony could carry the case across the threshold of reasonable doubt. In addition to reacting to the trial evidence, respondents were asked about their television viewing habits. Compared to non-CSI viewers, CSI viewers were more critical of the forensic evidence presented at the trial, finding it less believable. Regarding their verdicts, 29% of non-CSI viewers said they would convict, compared to 18% of CSI viewers (not a statistically significant difference). Forensic science viewers expressed more confidence in their verdicts than did non-viewers. Viewers of general crime programs, however, did not differ significantly from their non-viewing counterparts on any of the other dependent measures, suggesting that skepticism toward the forensic science testimony was specific to those whose diet consisted of heavy doses of forensic science television programs. *N.J. Schweitzer is a Ph.D. candidate, Department of Psychology, Arizona State University. Michael J. Saks is Professor of Law and Psychology and Faculty Fellow, Center for the Study of Law, Science, and Technology, Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, Arizona State University. The authors wish to thank Dawn McQuiston-Surrett for her assistance with this project and for the development of the experimental materials. Correspondence can be sent to N.J. Schweitzer, Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-1104 or [email protected]. ARTICLE Schweitzer and Saks 358 47 JURIMETRICS CITATION: N.J. Schweitzer and Michael J. Saks, The CSI Effect: Popular Fiction About Forensic Science Affects the Public’s Expectations About Real Forensic Science, 47 Jurimetrics J. 357–364 (2007). In recent years, the television program CSI and its spin-offs have portrayed forensic science as high-tech magic, solving crimes quickly and unerringly. Of course, CSI is only fiction. One forensic scientist estimates that 40% of the “science” on CSI does not exist, and most of the rest is performed in ways that crime lab personnel can only dream about. The gap between fact and fiction has led CSI to be accused of (or credited with) having a variety of effects on American society. Legal scholars, however, will be most interested in hypothesized effects related to trials, which come in two basic flavors: one posits that CSI adds to the burdens of the prosecution, and the other asserts that it adds to the burdens of the defense. The hypothesis heard most often is that CSI has raised the public’s expectations for the kind of forensic-science evidence that could and should be offered at trials to such heights that jurors are disappointed by the real evidence with which they are presented. Jurors tutored by CSI have come to expect high-tech forensic science to exist for all kinds of crime scene residua and to be able to solve all kinds of crimes. Evidence actually offered at trials disappoints, because either too little (or no) forensic science is presented or what is presented is less impressive than what is seen on television. Either way, goes this theory, jurors are acquitting more defendants because in court they are not seeing enough forensic science to persuade them of guilt. An alternative hypothesis, which runs in the opposite direction, is that CSI has fooled the public into thinking that forensic science is far more effective and accurate than it actually is. If true, jurors may be likely to readily accept whatever conclusions forensic science witnesses point them to. The two hypotheses are not necessarily at war with each other. The prosecution might benefit when it presents any forensic-science evidence, and the defense might benefit when there is no forensic-science evidence. Whether the “CSI Effect” helps the prosecution or the defense, the commentators seem to agree on one thing: that CSI is convincing the public that forensic science not only is science, but it is super science. If true, this is 1. Simon Cole & Rachel Dioso, Law and the Lab: Do TV Shows Really Affect How Juries Vote? Let’s Look at the Evidence, WALL ST. J., May 13, 2005, at W13 (quoting forensic scientist Thomas Mauriello). 2. Id.; Kimberlianne Podlas, “The CSI Effect”: Exposing the Media Myth, 16 FORDHAM INTELL. PROP. MEDIA & ENT. L.J. 429 (2006). 3. Other hypothesized “CSI effects” are that the program has educated the public about forensic science, that it has increased the public’s interest in forensic science, and that it has increased the number of students who want careers in forensic science. Id. at 442. 4. Id. at 433. 5. Id. at 437.