By: Kaitlyn de Armas ‘25
I. Introduction
As technology becomes a more integral part of quotidian life, it is almost inevitable that it coalesces within society. More than a basic physical dependence, the media and fictionalized television dramas are changing the way people perceive the world around them, altering the processes of thinking, political preferences, and cognitive ability. 1 With the increasing popularity of fictional realism, the portrayal of events and worlds that resemble real life,2 it is becoming increasingly challenging for avid viewers to distinguish reality from its scripted, TV counterpart.3 Furthermore, this blur of a false reality is only progressing through the increasing popularity of crime dramas. Feeding into the primary human attraction and fascination with fictional realism, crime themed TV shows have developed into a massive market, outnumbering every other drama subgenre and holding records among the most watched series on TV. 4 With the false and eccentric portrayal of the criminal justice system extending its reach across wider audiences, its effects are becoming more notable, as the public’s modified standard for the criminal justice system is now set by an impractical level. The increasing popularity of the portrayal of the legal system in fictional television shows and glamorized media outlets has distorted the public’s perception of the criminal justice system. Through the moral panic theory and a misunderstanding of the role of facts and officials, the CSI Effect has developed to intercept the system and affect the jury and verdict of criminal proceedings. 4 https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/heres-how-network-tv-depends-cop-shows-1299504/ 3 https://www.yorku.ca/mar/Till et al 2016_TV and death penalty knowledge.pdf 2 https://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-realistic-fiction-definition-characteristics-examples.html 1 https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/25/upshot/social-effects-television.html 11 Sporting a title inspired by the popular show, CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, the CSI Effect is the theory that watching crime television alters the public’s perception of criminal court cases, supposedly influencing juror behavior. 5 By setting unrealistic expectations on the effectiveness of forensic evidence, the public and, subsequently, the jurors, tend to over-rely on physical evidence when it is presented. Because real evidence is flawed and uncertain, television shows do not exhibit the process of piecing together many types of evidence, each with some probative value and some degree of uncertainty. With this heightened expectation, the jurors then assume the high-quality forensic evidence presented on CSI, and raise their standards for acceptable particulars in real trials. Consequently, CSI inflicted jurors may be more likely to convict based on unfounded doubts on a defendant's guilt, therefore interfering with the final judgment.6
II. Background
Before being able to properly analyze the role of the CSI Effect within the criminal justice system, it is essential to first understand the faculties that have allowed it to imprint on society and the various outlets of perception that it intersects within this field. The influence of the CSI Effect stems from the extensive grasp of the media; even though, contrary to popular belief, the media’s power is not derived by covertly shaping public opinion. Rather, the media affects what people think about, which in turn affects what they think.7 As the portrayal of the criminal justice system continues to flourish in television in the media, the public is becoming more aware of and exaggerating its convergences with everyday life, influencing the overestimation of crimes and creating a misinterpretation of facts. 7 https://doi.org/10.2307/2131346 6 Ibid. 5 https://plus.lexis.com/api/permalink/79ead1ad-6391-4608-853f-e1d9018b3ea5/?context=1530671 12 The media’s grasp on the public’s perception of their surroundings has led to the development of an overestimation of crimes stemming from the moral panic theory and mean world syndrome. The moral panic theory is an irrational and widespread fear that someone or something defined by the media is a prevalent threat to the values or interests of society, 8 while the mean world syndrome is the theory that long-term exposure to violence related content in mass media leads to the development of a cognitive bias that causes the public to view the world as more menacing than it actually is.9 Together, these two premises of false reality generate the belief that the criminal justice system is not as effective as it truly is, for people assume more crimes are occurring than actually are. If the only form of media that is consumed highlights communities of mistrust and destruction, it is inevitable that the public begins to perceive the world through this same, pessimistic lens. Furthermore, these assumptions extend their effects back into the system, as juror responses are altered based on these exaggerated beliefs. Crime television has also influenced the public’s expectation for evidence. Few crimes have concrete, scientific evidence, such as ballistics, gunshot residue, or DNA evidence, all of which are commonly seen on TV and canonized as essential components of a case. The public begins to expect this level of fact when analyzing the proof, creating an unrealistic caliber for valid evidence. Within the courtroom, jurors then deliberate based on this newly defined standard, which influences court proceedings and final decisions.10 Cooperatively, the overestimation of crimes and an unrealistic expectation for evidence create the foundation for the CSI Effect, which is slowly becoming more prominent within the courtroom. These assumptions reflected from the media hold gravity within the criminal justice process as they shape the content and results of a case. 10 https://www.govtech.com/dc/articles/tv-crime-shows-warp-perceptions-of.html 9 https://happiful.com/what-is-mean-world-syndrome/ 8 https://revisionworld.com/a2-level-level-revision/media-studies-level-revision/moral-panic-theory 13
III. Outcomes of the CSI Effect
Because of the influence of the CSI Effect on juror deliberations, it is important for the prosecution to consider media resonance when crafting the prime method for asserting their case. This consideration was essential in the conviction of Edward Fields in United States v. Fields (2019). Fields was put on trial for escaping from federal prison and murdering his ex-girlfriend, amongst various other crimes. With the case focusing on the murder, the defendant based his vindication on the argument that, without any physical evidence, it was not possible to commit the crime in the time and manner that the government supposed. Playing into the jury’s susceptibility to the CSI Effect, his case would seemingly be persuasive, in that Fields argued that he could not be linked to a crime without forensic proof. In order to rebut Field’s argument, the prosecution had to consider the CSI Effect and develop an explanation that would sufficiently justify the lack of physical evidence, which the jury was expecting. The government knew of the CSI Effect and knew the potential power Fields’s argument had on the case, so they cited this theory in order to combat it, when introducing crime scene photos of the victim’s body as one of the key pieces of evidence in their case. These images explained why minimal physical evidence had been discovered—it had been carried away by animals or worn away by the elements. Using the physical evidence of photographs to justify the lack of forensic evidence, such as DNA or fingerprints that the jury expected, allowed the government to formulate a strong enough argument to win their case and convict Fields.11 Explaining to the jury why the government had little in the way of scientific proof was arguably critical to the government's case. Acknowledging the capabilities of the CSI Effect in swaying juror opinion was essential in understanding what made Fields’s case strong, and how the prosecution could develop a counterargument that was stronger. 11 United States v. Fields, 483 F.3d 313 (2019). 14 Similarly, the CSI Effect played a crucial role in the ruling of Commonwealth v. Webster. In this case, John Webster was on trial for participating in a joint venture to commit home invasion, armed assault in a dwelling, armed robbery, and carrying a firearm without a license. Although text messages of the defendant saying he had a firearm and DNA in the vehicle, allowed the jury to conclude the defendant was at the crime scene, the key piece of evidence was the tire marks that supposedly matched the tires of Webster’s vehicle.12 Because of the CSI Effect-inflicted mindset, the jurors deemed this information as clear and self-explanatory in Webster’s conviction. The defendant argued that this evidence was unduly prejudicial because it misled the jury into believing that there was a perfect match, when there was possibility of misinterpretation or coincidence. However, this argument was not substantial in the eyes of jurors operating under the CSI mindset, for chance occurrences and incorrect conclusions such as these do not occur in the sphere of crime TV. 13 The forensic evidence of the tire tracks modeled the types of proof deemed as unquestionable in the media, leading the jury to see Webster’s conviction as an absolute consequence. Recognizing the CSI Effect is essential in understanding the jury’s conclusion, and where their confidence derived from.
IV. The Consequences of Public Cases in the Media
Besides the effects of crime television shows, the media plays into the CSI Effect in distorting the public’s perception of the criminal justice system. When criminal proceedings are televised and heavily publicized, the line of distinction between fiction and reality is easily blurred. People see both fact and fiction portrayed through the same outlet and in the same manner, causing the expectation for both to yield the same result. Both the cases of the People of the State of California v. Orenthal James Simpson and the People of the State of California v. 13 Ibid. 12 Commonwealth v. Webster, SJC-12358 (Mass. Jul. 27, 2018). 15 Robert Blake involved grave murder charges and violent proceedings. However, due to the CSI Effect, they were perceived by the public with the same gravity as fiction TV shows because of the ways they were portrayed. Seeing these cases on TV and in the media made them appear more fictionalized, so people did not understand or grasp the depth and significance of the hearings. In the infamous case of the People of the State of California v. Orenthal James Simpson, Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman were found stabbed to death in their home.14 Because the defendant, OJ Simpson, was a prominent public figure as a football player and actor, the trial was televised, as if it were a spectacle of entertainment. On the opening day of the trial, 95 million people in the US watched, and over 150 million Americans watched the final verdict.15 The outrageous popularity of the case turned it into a cultural phenomenon, sparking mottos, such as “If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit!”16 As press surrounding the trial continued to flourish, the search for injustice turned into a sort of spectator sport. The media completely altered the traditional roles of the case, surrounding the scene with commentary and sidebars to add to the facade.17 The lawyers, victims, and defendant were portrayed as characters in a film, while viewers were transformed into a “thirteenth juror,” overstepping boundaries to a new level of involvement in the case.18 The criminal justice system, one of the United States’s most powerful and influential institutions, was debased into a profit making commercial property for this case.19 With the CSI Effect convincing the public that they had a substantial amount of knowledge regarding the trial process, the people invested themselves in the case, tuning in and reacting to it as they would their favorite crime TV show. 19 Ibid. 18 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/17/oj-simpson-trial-cameras-court-justice-culture 17 https://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/acadfest/2020/all/8/ 16 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/17/oj-simpson-trial-cameras-court-justice-culture 15 Ibid. 14 https://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/acadfest/2020/all/8/ 16 In comparison, the People of the State of California v. Robert Blake also displayed the negative effects of excessive media portrayal and the CSI Effect in court. Robert Blake was a famous actor accused of murdering his wife.20 Because of his status in the media, Blake’s case received extensive press and attention from the public; subsequently transforming the case into a media spectacle instead of a trial. The jury then had the responsibility and pressure of coming to a judgment they could confidently support, which the CSI Effect had led them to believe required steadfast, forensic evidence. Although the case lacked fingerprints, DNA, and gunshot residue, several stuntmen testified against the defense, and the prosecution was able to theoretically place the weapon in Blake’s hand.21 Still, this circumstantial evidence was not valued at the same level as physical evidence by the jury, who deemed Blake ‘not guilty.’ The spectatorship and public interaction with the presented cases minimized the gravity of the proceedings, as people convoluted this tragic reality with similar stories enjoyed through crime TV. In both cases, the defendants were acquitted due to their substantial media influence and the effects of crime television distorting the juror and public’s expectations of the criminal justice system. With such serious events being covered in the same manner as their fictional counterparts, it is clear to see how the falsities of the crime TV world prevail in reality.
V. Conclusion
As the portrayal of the criminal justice system continues to grow in popularity within television and media, its influence is reaching a wider audience and incorrectly portraying more aspects of the system. Although it may seem like a harmless form of entertainment, the media has a significant effect on the way our thoughts and opinions are formed, which is why being aware of its persuasive tendencies is important. The first step in being able to distinguish fact 21 State v. Blake, 62 S.D. 538, 255 N.W. 108 (S.D. 1934). 20 https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/robert-blake-acquitted-of-wifes-murder 17 from fiction is encouraging viewers to recognize the outlets of false portrayal as what they truly are—falsities. Being able to separate the two will prevent the effects of the CSI Effect from interfering with court proceedings, through the moral panic theory, mean world syndrome, an unrealistic expectation for forensic evidence, and a desensitization to crime in the real world. Together, these influences represent the altered perception of reality the media has fostered, which affects the judgment of the public, and, therefore, the jury, from acting impartially. Media power and influence will only continue to grow as we delve deeper into the age of technology. Because the consequences of the CSI Effect will inevitably become more prominent within the courtroom, it is essential for both authorities and viewers to make changes inside and outside of the courtroom in order to combat this. Within the courtroom, lawyers need to acknowledge the repercussions of the CSI Effect in order to litigate an argument that will have the most influence on the jury. Explaining the realities and limitations of forensic evidence in context with the proof presented to the jury may help minimize the consequences of the media to build a stronger case. Furthermore, outside of the courtroom, crime television shows could have a statement that precedes the show, distinguishing that the contents are not factually correct. On the other hand, these production companies could work to more correctly portray the system. Although this style does not fit into the traditional structure of TV, it could develop into a new sub-genre that gives the CSI Effect a more positive connotation by correctly informing the public of the truth of the criminal justice system. Choosing to disregard the prominence of film and media within our everyday lives will not dissipate its effects, so choosing instead to acknowledge the modern intersection between the CSI Effect and the criminal justice system will allow the media to become a tool for educating the public, instead of a detriment to the values and distinction of the nation’s judicial system.