Introduction
Maeder, et al. (2016) defined “CSI effect” as the unreasonable expectations of jurors on the sophistication of forensic science as a consequence of learning about it through television programs, such as the CSI (Crime Scene Investigation), resulting in fewer convictions in the absence of sophisticated forensic evidence against the accused. Lobo and Schnobrich-Davis (2015) referred to this as the “Tech effect”, which essentially extends the definition into the advances in information dissemination technology and beyond ‘crime scene television shows’.
Article Summary
Research questions: The Lobo and Schnobrich-Davis (2015) study was guided by three research questions: (1) Does the CSI effect (as the “Tech effect”) influence jury verdicts? (2) Does CSI effect less influential to the older jurors than the younger jurors? (3) Does any increase of juror age increase conviction? The objective is to isolate the factor of age as an influence in the jury conviction verdicts. The challenge, however, is two-fold: Is it possible to gather data from (a) potential jurors over their knowledge of forensic evidence and their expectations of evidence presentation in court as their basis for making a specific verdict and (b) the same potential jurors after serving in court over their actual verdict and the evidential basis thereof?
Methods and findings: Lobo and Schnobrich-Davis (2015) conducted a web-based survey on the online email database of SurveyMonkey®, qualified under the United States District Court Jury Qualifications (USDCJQ) for Connecticut. The survey questionnaire contained “questions patterned after” surveys conducted by previous researchers and the Minnesota Department of Education, adding new questions to acquire data on the variables knowledge and belief on forensics. The findings were: (1) The CSI effect did not significantly influence jury conviction verdict; (2) Jury conviction verdicts were not significantly associated with perceived technological skill; and (3) Increase in jury age had no significant influence on their conviction verdict.
Conclusion and the Implications of Forensic Evidence in Criminal Trials
Evidently, studying the influence of the CSI effect on jury conviction verdicts is a complex undertaking prone with design issues. Although Lobo and Schnobrich-Davis (2015) managed to remove the unrealistic use of non-jury qualified respondents in their study, methodological weaknesses are evident. First, 81 percent of the participants had not experienced a jury service, which cannot connect their answers with their actual jury verdicts in real cases. Second, the evidence presented is not clear in terms of direction. Are these proofs supporting guilt or no guilt? Without a clear evidential direction, there is no control in the weight of evidence towards conviction or acquittal. Moreover, are these proofs taken from a real case in each scenario? Otherwise, lack of realism of evidence will be a confounding factor in the study. Third, defining “tech” or “CSI” as technological skill established no clear connection between technological skills and knowledge or belief in crime scene science and technology. A potential jury maybe technologically skillful but has no interest in crime scene technology. Or, a less skillful citizen technologically may have a strong interest in following CSI and similar shows.
The use of forensic (physical) evidence in criminal trials, however, is demonstrated roughly in the study, evidenced by the high preference of the younger jury-qualified respondents to arrive conviction verdicts based on predominantly physical evidence. However, this demographic indication of potential jury decision making behavior cannot be cleanly associated with the CSI or the Tech effect at least in the study being reviewed here. The flaws in the current study simply cannot accomplish that. In effect, the CSI effect may still be real or, perhaps, not.
References
Lobo, J. & Schnobrich-Davis, J. (2015, November 5). Tech effect and generational age implications on jury verdicts. Forensic Research & Criminology International Journal, 1(3), 00016 (1-9).
Maeder, E.M., McManus, L.A., McLaughlin, K.J., Yamamoto, S., & Stewart, H. (2016). Jurors’ perceptions of scientific testimony: The role of gender and testimony complexity in trials involving DNA evidence. Cogent Psychology, 3(Article 1264657), 1-14.
