# data[].attributes.body
Current thesis: The CSI effect has altered the conduct of courtroom jurors in such a manner that it's time to consider that the criminal justice system might benefit from new methods preventing courtroom bias.

Reference: Kim, Y.S., Barak, G., & Shelton, D. E., (2009) Examining the “CSI-effect” in the

cases of circumstantial evidence and the eyewitness testimony: Multivariate and path analyses.

Journal of Criminal Justice 37(5), 452-460

Examining the “CSI-effect” in the cases of circumstantial evidence and eyewitness testimony: Multivariate and path analyses  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047235209000889

In text citation: Kim (2009)

This article is about research being done to answer previous questions that haven't been opened yet. Previous studies have not answered. Watching a CSI drama affects the jury's verdict. Whether the exposure of a CSI drama affects a person's characteristics. Conclusion The jury's judgment was independently unaffected and The CSI drama did not interact with personal characteristics. The methods  used for this study were samples, dependent variables, and independent variables. Multivariate Analysis of circumstantial evidence shows, supports, and supports the  original claim of the paper. hypothesis. Some implications of the survey may be  that it did not actually have huge demographics, but only interviewed 1,027 juries from the Washtenaw County Courthouse in Michigan.  These results support my paper that the CSI effect has no effect on the court.

Reference: Schweitzer, N. J., & Saks, M. J. (2007). THE CSI EFFECT: POPULAR FICTION ABOUT FORENSIC SCIENCE AFFECTS THE PUBLIC’S EXPECTATIONS ABOUT REAL FORENSIC SCIENCE. Jurimetrics, 47(3), 357–364.  https://www.jstor.org/stable/29762978?casa_token=7s1VM6ddd3MAAAAA%3ApQVUvdhPyXScjarAelCgOkeylcjSCuAyYJWu6ad1GhaKuqK6HTEuq1VrJD7oqlMXGHGhiI_P_Ub1f0ejYrix_1BAOjNehwa6xje0BaDQKbaqN9JwN8gA&seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

In-text Citation: Schweitzer, & Saks, (2007)

Two of the hypotheses, loosely referred to as the CSI effect, are the ones that exaggerate and praise television shows and their spin-offs, forensics, and as a result, ( A) prosecution for greater expectations than can be met in forensic medicine, or (b) over-reliance on forensic skills and credibility burdens defense. In this study, they tested these hypotheses by providing a fake jury with a mock trial record containing the testimony of a forensic scientist. The  conviction debate was relatively weak unless an expert testimony could carry the case beyond reasonable suspicion. In addition to responding to evidence from the trial, respondents were asked about their television viewing habits. Compared to non-CSI viewers, CSI viewers felt more critical and unreliable with the forensic evidence presented in the process. Regarding their judgment, 29% of non-CSI viewers said they would judge compared to 18% of CSI viewers (there is no statistically significant difference). Forensic viewers were more confident in their judgment than non-viewers. However, viewers of common crime shows are not significantly different from non-viewers in any of the other dependencies, and skepticism about forensic suggestions is that those who live off of forensic television shows which was pretty peculiar.

Reference: Alldredge, J. (2015). Themis: Research Journal of Justice Studies and Forensic Science, Spring 2015. The "CSI Effect" and Its Potential Impact on Juror Decisions. (3). https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1027&context=themis#:~:text=The%20%E2%80%9CCSI%20Effect%E2%80%9D%20was%20first,the%20conviction%20or%20acquittal%20process

In-text Citation: (Alldredge, 2015)

This article defines what the "CSI effect" is in relation to the criminal justice system. It also shows that this effect can create a defensive bias for the jury. The hypothesis in this article is how a jury with a background in criminal television viewing causes a conflict between conviction and acquittal. The data uses the example of a lawyer who requests unnecessary forensic tests during  the process. Results vary depending on the factors investigated. With having a mix of jurors who watch crime shows and some who don`t there is not a distinct answer or solution to the issues. In real world application this article helps reinforce how the media can manipulate ideals and knowledge. While also showing how people should not always believe what they see on tv is how the real world operates.

Reference:

Errickson, Giles, S. B., & Horsman, G. (2019). The CSI Effect(s no one?). Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine, 67, 64–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jflm.2019.05.017

In-text Citation: (Errickson, 2019)

This article focuses on how media, literature, movies, and video games  affect juries in the criminal justice system. People with homemade knowledge from such sources can lead to withdrawal and  lack of understanding when forensic experts testify. This article is intended for the "CSI effect" on  criminals, professionals, and  general education regarding the role of forensic medicine in court. This article focuses on how the criminal justice system seeks to prevent the CSI effect. This is to resolve the misunderstanding as soon as possible. Choose a judge who has never seen a crime series or other media and will change your prejudice. This article seems to see politics as a solution to prevent the "CSI effect". Strict guidelines for viewing and understanding as actual forensic medicine. With the conclusion that practitioners are unlikely to be affected. The general public, who are not experts in this field, are vulnerable to the "CSI effect."

# data[].attributes.body
The “CSI Effect” became first defined by the the media as a phenomenon attributable to viewing forensic and crime primarily based on what was seen on tv shows. This can potentially impact jurors to have unrealistic expectations of forensic technological know-how for the duration of a trial and have an effect on jurors' selections during the conviction or acquittal process. What jurors are gaining is a false sense of knowledge that they see in these court cases on television. The end result is they feel like they are smarter than they are because they believe what they saw on TV was true and use that information in a real life case. The CSI effect has altered the conduct of courtroom jurors in such a manner that it's time to consider that the criminal justice system might benefit from new methods preventing courtroom bias.

Since the early 2000s, television shows based on crime scene investigations have become new and exciting dramas to watch. The show called "CSI" has been the most popular television show in the world for some time. CBS defines the television show as "a drama about a team of forensic investigators trained to solve criminal cases by combining scenes, collecting irrefutable evidence, and finding missing parts to solve the mystery." This series has made millions of fans in more than 170 countries famous for their DNA by learning about the importance of blood, saliva and skin as evidence and how these factors can help solve crime. An example would be in the CSI Miami episode we watched when the police break into the farm for any evidence they could find. Some people who watch that may think that if one day they grow up to be in a position like that, they could just beat the system and get everything they need done in a timely manner. Therefore, it is important to consider how these viewers perceive the information from these television shows and the overall impact it has had on them.

On TV if the CSI people do their job right, the jury will have no choice but to convict them. In real life, the false expectations of a wealth of scientific evidence can lead to jury prejudice if this issue is not properly addressed in the process. The research methods presented at  CSI are not always available and not even useful. It has become a struggle for juries to be formed, as well as figuring out who is best fit for the jury and what not. What the CSI effect has let to is the following: Difficult to prosecute defendants, harder to find jurors, straining what is already tight resources, manipulating crime scenes, lawyers spending too much time educating juries, while this also makes jurors believe they are gaining knowledge of the system, but rather they are just gaining knowledge of the CSI effect which in hindsight is good but the overall system has led to some corruption on the part of the jury.

Chief prosecutor Andrew Thomas spoke about a few cases in an article that he felt were influenced by the CSI effect. “As chief prosecutor for Maricopa County, which includes the city of Phoenix, my office prosecutes about 40,000 felonies each year and includes a staff of 300 prosecutors. In June 2005, we surveyed 102 of those attorneys, all of whom had trial experience, and they reported that the CSI effect is no myth: Of the prosecutors we surveyed, 38% believed they had at least one trial that resulted in either an acquittal or hung jury because forensic evidence was not available, even though prosecutors believed the existing testimony was sufficient by itself to sustain a conviction. In about 40% of these prosecutors’ cases, jurors have asked questions about evidence like “mitochondrial DNA,” “latent prints,” “trace evidence,” or “ballistics”—even when these terms were not used at trial. Thomas (2006)

In the case of State v. Everett Black, the defendant was caught in a drug pack in a cigarette pack in his pocket. He admitted that the pack belonged to him, but denied that the drugs belonged to him or that he knew that the drug was there. The foreman later said he was monitoring the CSI and believed that investigators should do extensive fingerprinting, DNA testing, and other forensic investigations, and that prosecutors did not do enough. He had convinced the jury that they were doing more on TV, and that the cops weren't doing a good job. This is an example where prosecutors are worried that justice is not provided. The verdict hasn't changed significantly from guilty to innocent, but prosecutors have had to take more and more precautions to distract the jury from the expectations of television style. Those are just two examples of many have surfaced in our court system, and with CSI television not going away any time soon but in fact growing it is important that we look and understand the facts presented here and that is that unfortunately the CSI effect while not being the main cause of jury issues, definitely seems to have played a role in some court cases in the past.

The question then becomes how can it be limited? First and foremost it is about picking the right jurors. They need to be questioned about where they work, what they watch, what they believe in and even how technologically advanced they might be. Also, experts should be carefully selected if the case may have CSI effect issues. In particular, be prepared to ask the experts directly about the lack of scientific evidence. In fact, some court lawyers now use "negative evidence" to inform juries that it is not uncommon for real investigators  to find no physical evidence. In the civil context, attorneys provide evidence from witnesses, while simply reminding the jury that the type of evidence currently awaiting is considered to be seen, of the evidence presented in court. The influence of prejudice regarding the type can be mitigated on television, which is not seen in each trial.

To conclude, it seems as though at least some changes are being made or at least addressed in talking about the CSI effect. It is definitely something that while it probably won’t be the make or break in a case it could definitely lead to some cases being falsely convicted and that in itself should be enough for the criminal justice system to want to make a change. So while the problem will probably be an existing one for quite some time, it’s a very positive sign that it seems like changes are at least being attempted to limit the impact of the overall CSI effect.