I was recently in a meeting presenting a chart that depicted a link analysis of a criminal enterprise specific to an urban environment. One of the participant’s in the meeting asked for a copy of the chart and explained how he was first exposed to them by watching the television series Homeland.

That statement further validated the notion of the “CSI effect” that has taken hold over the past few years. The best-known definition for the phenomena states that

CSI creates unreasonable expectations on the part of jurors, making it more difficult for prosecutors to obtain convictions.

As with most things the “CSI effect” can be considered positive or negative. A proponent of the effect points to the fact that the show’s wide appeal would be an asset to recruiting future criminal scientists, inspire prosecutor’s to ensure that all relevant scientific testing is properly conducted, and create a renewed interest in public funding to improve the facilities and enhance the skill sets of practitioners currently in the industry.

The potential for these positives appear to be outweighed by the current reality being observed in courtrooms across the nation. Most of the relevant literature on the topic points to the unrealistic expectations of current jurors and the challenges prosecutors are facing in presenting their cases.

In 2006, a study was conducted of 1,027 randomly selected jurors in Ann Arbor Michigan. The study found the following:

• 46% expected to see some kind of scientific evidence in every criminal case.
• 22% expected to see DNA evidence in every criminal case.
• 36% expected to see fingerprint evidence in every criminal case.
• 32% expected to see ballistic or other firearms laboratory evidence in every criminal case.

A higher percentage of those surveyed expected to see DNA evidence in higher profile crime such as:

Murder/Attempted Murder (46%)

Sexual Assault (73%)

The pool of respondents also sought specific evidence such as fingerprint evidence for crimes involving breaking and entering cases (71%), theft cases (59%), and crimes involving a gun (66%).

The survey results become more relevant due to the fact that almost half of the respondents reported that they frequently watched Law & Order and CSI. The study also found that the juror’s perceptions of the shows were colored by how “real” they understood the show to be.

Crime dramas have been around as long as television, the difference today is the sophistication of the technology featured in the shows. Detectives have always been able to get search warrants in the time it takes for a commercial break and investigations are usually wrapped up by the end of a 59-minute program.

The difference with these modern shows is that modern science is portrayed as an infallible alternative to trying to determine if a suspect or witness statements are untruthful. Ultimately this science plays on our primordial fear of being falsely accused and convicted of a crime.

This effect does have larger implications to our homeland security posture. I believe this trend toward being solely reliant on forensic evidence goes beyond the distrust of a police officer’s testimony. This effect is the fuel that feeds the fire of conspiracy theorists convinced the US government had a part in 9/11 and our government faked Osama bin Laden’s death.