Ripple Effect: Where CSI Meets Real Law and Order
The tie-ins between real-life crime fighting and television
BY AMY LENNARD GOEHNER; LINA LOFARO; KATE NOVACK/TIME Magazine
Jerry Bruckheimer is the Michael Moore of criminal law. Defense lawyers
love his CSI shows because they have caused juries to demand DNA analysis
in nearly every two-bit 7-Eleven holdup. Prosecutors, meanwhile, feel
hampered by the fact that 10 eyewitnesses are not enough to satisfy
CSI-watching jurors who crave the supposedly conclusive proof of hair
follicles on a knife.
CSI, because of its popularity and fecundity, is the most dramatic new
influence on a justice system that has always been affected by books,
movies and TV. "When Perry Mason first aired, lawyers were not allowed to
approach witnesses to question them," says Christopher Stone, director of
the Vera Institute of Justice, a nonprofit that promotes innovation in the
justice system. "But you couldn't fit Mason and the witness in the same
frame, so the directors had Mason walk over and lean on the witness rail.
Then juries expected lawyers to do that, and if they didn't, jurors
thought something was wrong." Moreover, Stone says, Dragnet helped save
the Miranda ruling, which was unpopular with law enforcement and some
politicians, by showing viewers that reading suspects their rights didn't
hamper the cops' ability to interrogate them. And former Los Angeles
County public defender Stan Goldman, now a Loyola law professor and legal
editor for Fox News, says Quincy had lawyers concerned that juries would
demand finger
prints for every case.
The CSI effect has been similarly potent. Last November prosecutors in
Galveston, Texas, despite a plethora of nonforensic evidence, couldn't
convince a jury that Robert Durst had murdered Morris Black, even though
Durst admitted inadvertently killing him, because Black's head couldn't be
found. The head, the defense argued, contained key evidence that Durst had
acted in self-defense. "The CSI effect is real, and it's profound," says
jury consultant Robert Hirschhorn, who also says he purposely selected
jurors familiar with CSI and forensics-type shows for the Durst trial.
But all those sprays and lasers and high-tech microscopes, it turns out,
are expensive. "DNA analysis is used every six seconds on CSI," says
Robert J. Castelli, a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice
who was a police officer for 21 years. "To analyze properly a sample of
DNA can cost as much as $10,000. You're not going to be using DNA analysis
in every burglary." So prosecutors are now spending a lot of time trying
to explain to juries that DNA evidence isn't always essential. Joshua
Marquis, a pro-death-penalty district attorney in Oregon, is worried that
cops will have to start doing all sorts of unnecessary forensics work just
to placate CSI-educated juries. "A good analogy to this situation is
defensive medicine," says Marquis. "You have doctors who will order a
series of very expensive and probably unnecessary tests to cover their
asses. Are we going to have police officers doing that same thing?"
While prosecutors are trying to reduce juries' expectations, defense
attorneys like Barry Scheck, a co-founder of the Innocence Project and
former O.J. Simpson lawyer, are happy to see the TV-watching public demand
more from the justice system. "Crime labs are in a crisis. An independent,
scientifically rigorous, up-to-date crime lab is essential to law
enforcement. CSI teaches us that," says Scheck. William Petersen, who
isn't a forensic specialist but, of course, plays one on the original CSI,
has testified in Congress to get more federal dollars to local labs.
Already colleges are rapidly adding forensics departments because of
increased student interest, and even high schools are inserting forensics
into their science curriculums. "Twenty years ago, the typical forensics
person we'd hire had a B.A. in science. Now we're hiring master's- and
Ph.D.-level people," says Barry Fisher, crime-lab director for the Los
Angeles County sheriff's department.
It's not only jurors, lawyers and educators who are being affected. Fisher
cites a recent case in which a rapist forced his victim to shower after
the attack to wash off any evidence. "I'm sure he's reacting to the stuff
on TV where they have an understanding that there is trace evidence
available," he says. And in September a woman who allegedly robbed a
Bantam, Conn., bank used a diaper bag to store the money, an idea she said
she picked up from CSI.
---
Source : The TIME Magazine
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 37,00.html
