When you turn on your TV guide to find something interesting to watch, chances are you will come across at least one crime show, whether it be a new episode or a rerun you’ve seen a thousand times. There is CSI, NCIS, Criminal Minds, Law and Order, and Bones, just to name a few favorites. CSI has been one of the most popular crime shows to date, which could be a reason for having three different series for it (CSI, CSI: Miami, and CSI: New York). This popular show has had quite an interesting outcome when it comes to the courtrooms, which is how it came to be known as the “CSI Effect”.

The three different CSI shows.

Monica Robbers, an American criminologist, defined it as “the phenomenon in which jurors hold unrealistic expectations of forensic evidence and investigation techniques, and have an increased interest in the discipline of forensic science”. On average, there are about 63 homicides shown per week on primetime television across six different networks, according to The San Diego Tribune. Every time one of these homicides is shown on TV, the audience tries to figure out who committed the crime, by following the leads of the show’s detectives. The audience then tries to solve the cases when it was their turn to be jurors in the courtroom. From watching crime shows, jurors think they know every little aspect of an investigation, when in reality, they’re only shown the basics.

To see if the “CSI Effect” truly had an impact on the average person, Gregg Barak, Ph.D., and Young Kim, Ph.D., criminology professors at Eastern Michigan University, surveyed approximately 1,000 people who were to be selected as jurors for an upcoming case. The first question asked about the programs they watched on television, including how often they were watched and how realistic they were thought to be. The survey included questions about several types of cases relating to murder/attempted murder, physical and sexual assault, breaking and entering, theft, and possession of a gun.

The results from the survey.

The results: 46% expected to see some kind of scientific evidence in every case. 22% expected to see DNA evidence in every case. 36% expected to see fingerprint evidence in every case. 32% expected to see evidence from ballistics in every case. 27% would not convict someone without scientific evidence. And 42% of the 1,000 people surveyed watch CSI.

Although this evidence is purely anecdotal, other studies have received results that proved watching crime shows had an effect on people. Arizona State University conducted mock trials with their students and found that 29% of non-CSI viewers said they would convict, however only 18% of CSI viewers would have convicted the defendant.

Some incidents have occurred that show the “CSI Effect” taking place in the courtroom. In Phoenix, AZ, jurors brought to the judges attention that DNA was not collected from blood found on a lab coat, where the judge replied that tests were not needed because the defendant had already admitted to being present at the scene. The judge agreed that the jurors learned about DNA tests from television shows, but not enough about when to use them. On the other hand, in Richmond, VA, jurors were able to overturn the outcome of a case when they asked if a cigarette butt could be tested for DNA that could relate back to the defendant. The DNA tests were completed, but not introduced into the evidence because the tests exonerated the defendant. “Obviously these represent only a fraction of the instances in which previous “knowledge” gained by jurors from television had predetermined their views of the important, possible, and applicable tests, procedures, and therefore altered their expectations. The true number of times that these types of views have biased or at least influenced juror decisions can never be quantified” according to Evan Durnal, a researcher of the University of Central Missouri’s Criminal Justice Department.

Statistics from 97 defense attorneys that were surveyed by Monica Robbers:

• 47% felt they were forced to spend more time weeding through potential jurors during voir dire (a preliminary examination of a witness or a juror by a judge or counsel).
• 66% felt they spent additional time discussing forensic evidence.
• 62% felt that juries had an unreasonable expectation of forensic evidence.
• 40% felt that they had been involved in cases in which forensic evidence was presented but was entirely irrelevant to the proceedings.

Statistics from 89 judges that were surveyed by Monica Robbers:

• 46% felt that forensic evidence that was irrelevant to the case was presented.
• 58% felt that more time had been spent in voir dire.
• 69% felt that jurors had an unreasonable expectation of forensic evidence.

As you can see, the perspectives of the attorneys and the judges have pretty similar opinions about how they feel the “CSI Effect” has impacted the courtrooms. Is there such thing as the “CSI Effect”? Yes, yes there is. Watching crime shows, such as CSI, does have an effect on jurors in the courtroom. Could there be reverse causation? There is a slight chance that it could be the case. If you are a juror on duty and you are actually interested by what is taking place, then you might be intrigued to go home and watch more crime shows. The studies tended to be more observational than experimental, since the outcomes are mostly subjective. As Evan Durnal wrote in his research, “It may not influence every juror one way or another, but it most certainly has influence on the criminal justice system as a whole”.

Although most of us have probably never been placed on jury duty, do you think you could be affected by the “CSI Effect”?