Videot Jurors

USA Today's cover story today covers what is called the "CSI effect" in the nation's courtrooms. Apparently, jurors who have gorged on a steady diet of TV shows about forensic science are bringing that "knowledge" with them and applying it to real life cases. Sometimes, they hold prosecutors responsible for a lack of scientific evidence, even though it doesn't exist in many cases. In other instances, they believe every bit of expert testimony fed to them by the state, in spite of numerous examples of human error and flat out deceit (West Virginia's own Fred Zain comes to mind). The problem seems to be that because the techs always get their man on CSI (or its spinoffs), many jurors believe they do in the real world, too. In truth, DNA and other forensic evidence almost never answers the ultimate question of whether someone committed a crime. At best, it can tie someone to a crime scene or an implement used in the crime. But important things like state of mind and the human interactions that led up to the event are still up to the jury to determine.

Personally, I passed on the CSI franchise once I saw an episode of CSI: Miami where the techs seemed to be the lead criminal investigators and even interrogated suspects. Sorry, I'm simply not willing to suspend reality that much.