Did 'CSI' effect sway Anthony jury? - CSI

http://tinyurl.com/3zcpacy
Did 'CSI' effect sway Anthony jury?

By Thaddeus Hoffmeister, Special to CNN
July 6, 2011 6:27 p.m. EDT

Editor's note: Thaddeus Hoffmeister teaches law at the University of Dayton
School of Law and is the editor of the Juries blog.

(CNN) -- Did the "CSI" effect have an influence on the verdict in the Casey
Anthony trial?

Programs such as "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation," in which forensics play a
key role in solving crimes in 60 minutes or less, are thought by many
prosecutors and legal analysts to create unreasonable expectations for jurors
deciding fates in the real world. Jurors, for the most part, have no legal
training or real-life experience with the criminal justice system. They are
without any frame of reference for how trials operate beyond what they see on
television

Prosecutors have long argued that the "CSI" effect is real and creates
unreasonable expectations in the minds of jurors. They maintain that the
standards for obtaining a conviction these days have been raised because
jurors now expect and want scientific evidence linking the defendant to the
crime, especially in a circumstantial case.

To combat this problem, many prosecutors try to lower the bar during jury
selection by telling potential jurors not to expect what they see on
television to be played out in the courtroom.

In addition, some prosecutors present forensic evidence that neither proves
nor refutes the defendant's guilt but is intended to demonstrate to the jury
the thoroughness of the prosecutor's investigation. Other prosecutors use
so-called "negative evidence" such as the testimony of experts to assure
jurors that it is not abnormal for crime scene investigators to fail to find
certain types of evidence. Finally, a few prosecutors seek help from the
court by way of jury instructions.

Here is a sample of the instructions given by a judge to jurors in Ohio:

The effort to exclude misleading-outside-influence- information also puts a
limit on getting legal information from television entertainment. This would
apply to popular TV shows such as "Law & Order," "Boston Legal," "Judge
Judy," older shows like "L.A. Law," "Perry Mason," or "Matlock," and any
other fictional show dealing with the legal system. In addition, this would
apply to shows such as "CSI" and "NCIS," which present the use of scientific
procedures to resolve criminal investigations. These and other similar shows
may leave you with an improper preconceived idea about the legal system. As
far as this case is concerned, you are not prohibited from watching such
shows. However, there are many reasons why you cannot rely on TV legal
programs ...

Without talking to the Casey Anthony jurors directly, we can't know for sure
what led them to their decision to acquit. But in a trial held in the
crime-TV saturated culture of 2011, there is a strong possibility that the
"CSI" effect was a factor.

There were arguably several instances during the trial where the lack of
forensic evidence could have led the jury to have reasonable doubt about the
prosecution's case.

First, the prosecution was unable to determine how 2-year-old Caylee Anthony
died. Jurors understand when a body is missing but have difficulty accepting
that science is unable to determine the cause of death.

Second, Casey Anthony's DNA was not on the duct tape that prosecutors said
was used to suffocate Caylee Anthony. Many jurors consider DNA to be the gold
standard of evidence, and when it is not present, questions arise.

Third, no evidence placed Casey Anthony where her daughter's body was
ultimately discovered. Jurors wanted to know why the defendant, with today's
scientific advancements, could not be placed at the scene of the crime.

In sum, this case was built on circumstantial evidence in which there was no
forensic evidence directly linking Casey Anthony to her daughter's death.

These illustrations are by no means an indictment of the prosecutorial team.
Quite the contrary, most believe that they performed well.

This was a "dry bones" case, and prosecutors can only present the evidence
they possess. These examples are merely an attempt to deconstruct a verdict
that many of the Americans following the case seemed to disagree with and to
show how the "CSI" effect might have influenced the Casey Anthony trial.

Cases like this one join a long list of others that leave citizens puzzled as
to how a guilty verdict wasn't reached.

It leaves scholars theorizing about possible changes to reach fairer verdicts
and legislators looking for changes to ensure "common sense" results. But the
reality is that while the system isn't perfect, it is more often than not
fair, based on standards that don't change depending on whether we dislike a
defendant and feel that she or he should be adjudged as guilty.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Thaddeus
Hoffmeister.

----------------
傻傻分不清了 XD
----------------

--