Toobin: "CSI" makes jurors more demanding
Is popular show guilty of influencing U.S. courtrooms?
 |  Toobin says the "CSI" series can mislead jurors due to their speed, capabilities and high success rate. |
| |
| ON CNN TV |
 Tune into CNN on Sunday, May 15, at 10 p.m. ET for "Anatomy of Murder: Crime Scene Investigation," a one-hour Dr. Sanjay Gupta prime-time special.
|
|
(CNN) -- CBS's popular "CSI" programs -- the initials stand for crime scene investigation -- have thrown a curve at the U.S. legal system, according to experts.
CNN talked with its legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin, about the impact of the "CSI" shows on jurors, law enforcement authorities, prosecutors and defense attorneys.
CNN: What is the so-called "CSI" effect?
TOOBIN: "CSI" has created an expectation among many jurors that the prosecution can produce scientific evidence of guilt. [But] prosecutors can't always deliver the goods.
Some people are calling it the "CSI" effect -- jurors demanding scientific proof of guilt or refusing to produce convictions.
CNN: What positive and negative consequences have these programs had on the legal system?
TOOBIN: The good effect of these shows is that they force police departments and prosecutors to make the efforts and spend money to get the good technology that really does produce reliable results.
The bad effect can be creating unrealistic expectations on the part of jurors that simply can't be met by existing technologies.
There are some juries that have created almost impossible-to-meet standards for the prosecution, saying, "We demand scientific proof of guilt," when either the technology isn't there or the evidence isn't the kind that can be tested to give that kind of proof.
Jurors are getting more demanding. Sometimes human DNA evidence isn't enough. They want testing of other evidence, [using] technologies that may exist only on television. That's a real problem for prosecutors when that happens.
CNN: What about defense attorneys?
TOOBIN: Defense attorneys have capitalized on this so-called "CSI" effect, too, by saying to jurors: "Why didn't the government do a test? Why didn't the government use all of the technology available?"
 "Some juries ... have created almost impossible-to-meet standards for the prosecution. 
-- CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin
|
| |
Sometimes it's a good point; sometimes it's creating unrealistic expectations on the part of jurors as to what the government can do.
CNN: What's the biggest difference between real crime cases and what's seen on TV?
TOOBIN: The efficiency of "CSI" is rarely matched in the real world.
Things just happen a lot more slowly. It takes a long time to process DNA, and there are lots of backlogs. You can't simply collect blood one day, put it into the data bank the next day, and get your killer.
Things take a long time, and sometimes they don't work at all.
