DECONSTRUCTING THE CSI EFFECT: FORENSIC SCIENCE AND THE MEDIA

 

By    Emily  Fisher    

Department  of  Science,  Technology  &  Society  The  University  of  Pennsylvania    

                           

Thesis  Advisor:  Dr.  John  Tresch,  Department  of  Science,  Technology  &  Society      

  1  

Acknowledgements        

  Writing  this  paper  is  by  far,  one  of  the  most  arduous  tasks  that  I  have  

undertaken  during  my  years  of  higher  education.  The  discipline,  responsibility  and  

motivation  required  to  complete  such  a  project  are  learned  skills  that  I  have  had  the  

opportunity  to  sharpen  over  the  past  year.  However,  this  final  product  could  not  

have  come  to  fruition  without  the  help  of  several  important  individuals.    

  I  would  like  to  begin  by  thanking  the  Department  of  Science,  Technology  and  

Society  at  the  University  of  Pennsylvania.  The  honors  program  for  this  major  

provided  me  with  the  opportunity  and  the  resources  necessary  to  construct  my  

thesis.    

  Within  the  department,  I  want  to  thank  my  advisor,  Dr.  John  Tresch.  Dr.  

Tresch,  you  have  been  with  me  since  the  start.  From  the  infantile  stages  of  

determining  my  topic  to  the  final  draft  of  the  paper,  you  have  critiqued  my  

argument,  guided  my  research,  and  taught  me  how  to  construct  a  scholarly  

publication  of  this  magnitude.  Thank  you  for  everything.    

  Lastly,  I  would  like  to  thank  my  family.  Mom,  Dad,  Jamie,  thank  you  so  much  

for  your  love,  support  and  opinions  throughout  this  process.  Your  insights  and  

intellect  and  objectivity  were  critical  in  helping  me  craft  this  paper.  I  cannot  tell  you  

enough  how  much  I  value  and  appreciate  your  input.  As  an  aside,  I  would  also  like  to  

thank  you  for  letting  me  hog  the  TV  over  school  vacations.  I  told  you  I  was  doing  

research!  I  love  you.    

     

  2  

I. INTRODUCTION    

  The  entertainment  value  of  television  is  a  cultural  norm  in  our  society.  

According  to  a  2012  study  published  by  Nielsen  Statistics  and  the  New  York  Times,  

the  average  American  over  the  age  of  two  spends  more  than  thirty-­‐seven  hours  a  

week  watching  television.1  These  findings  quantitatively  represent  our  society’s  

shift  from  printed  media  to  “visual  literacy.”2  Of  the  hundreds  of  different  shows  

available  to  channel  surfers,  police  procedurals  and  other  crime-­‐related  television  

shows  are  by  far  a  fan  favorite.  Logically  this  makes  sense;  television  franchises  such  

as  NCIS  and  its  spin  off  NCIS:  Los  Angeles,  Law  and  Order  (as  well  as  its  subsequent  

spin  offs),  Bones,  Dexter,  and  all  of  the  CSIs  are  successful  multi-­‐season  investments  

that  have  accrued  a  loyal  fan  base  over  the  years.  Their  immense  popularity  has  

prompted  networks  to  re-­‐air  these  shows  in  syndication,  or  extend  their  rights  to  

the  show  so  as  to  allow  for  live  streaming  on  computers,  iPads  and  other  

technologies.  As  a  result,  legal  institutions  such  as  the  Supreme  Court  and  the  

American  Bar  Association  have  begun  to  examine  the  relationship  between  

television’s  portrayal  and  the  public’s  understanding  of  the  law.3  Their  findings  have  

yielded  empirical  evidence  to  suggest  that  most  people  learn  about  law  and  

forensics  from  television.4  Yet,  in  an  article  published  by  The  Wall  Street  Journal,  it  

was  estimated  that  approximately  “40%  of  the  forensic  science  in  the  television  

                                                                                                               1 David Hinckley, “Americans Spend 34 Hours a Week Watching TV, According to Nielsen Numbers,” New York Daily News, Sept. 12, 2012, http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv-movies/americans-spend-34-hours-week-watching-tv-nielsen-numbers-article-1.1162285 (accessed 27 Feb. 2013). 2 Kimberlianne Podlas, "The CSE Effect: Exposing the Media Myth," Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal, 16, no. 2 (2005): 429-465, http://iplj.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Article-THE-CSI-EFFECT-EXPOSING-THE-MEDIA-MYTH.pdf, 443. 3 Ibid.,430. 4 Ibid.,444.

  3  

show  CSI  [alone]  does  not  exist,  and  most  of  the  rest  is  performed  in  ways  that  crime  

lab  personnel  can  only  dream  about.”5  In  other  words,  those  critical  experiments  

performed  by  Abby  Sciuto  on  NCIS,  or  by  the  scientists  at  the  Jeffersonian  in  Bones  

are  most  likely  fictionalized,  and  the  as  seen  on  TV  slogan  is  rapidly  moving  in  the  

opposite  direction  from  reality.6  Observers  of  this  phenomenon  have  dubbed  it  the  

CSI  Effect,  and  have  devoted  numerous  resources  and  time  in  an  attempt  to  

ascertain  the  reach  of  influence  these  television  shows  have  over  jury  verdicts.  I  

however,  propose  that  by  investigating  this  theory,  researchers  are  amassing  

misleading  information  that  does  not  depict  an  accurate  representation  as  to  how  

the  media  influences  jury  verdicts.  In  order  to  prove  so,  I  will  systematically  attack  

the  claims  proposed  by  the  CSI  Effect.  By  invalidating  the  current  research  

paradigm,  scholars  researching  this  topic  will  be  motivated  to  reexamine  their  line  

of  inquiry  as  they  attempt  to  determine  the  relationship  between  the  media  and  

society’s  implementation  of  law  and  order.    

II.  THE  REALITY  FORENSIC  SCIENCE  COMPARED  TO  ITS  PORTRAYAL  BY  THE  

MEDIA  

  Scientifically  ascertaining  the  identity  of  a  perpetrator  of  a  crime  is  the  

number  one  goal  of  a  criminal  investigation.  This  end  game  allows  for  society  to  

render  the  punishment  it  feels  is  necessary  in  order  to  achieve  the  semblance  of  

justice  and  restore  order.  Over  the  past  century  we  have  experienced  an  

Information  Revolution  that  is  responsible  for  the  development  of  technologies  with  

                                                                                                               5 Simon Cole and Rachel Dioso, “Law and the Lab: Do TV Shows Really Affect How Juries Vote? Let’s Look at the Evidence,” Wall Street Journal, May 13, 2005, http://truthinjustice.org/law-lab.htm. 6 N.J. Schweitzer and Michael J. Saks, “The CSI Effect: Popular Fiction About Forensic Science Affects the Public’s Expectations About Real Forensic Science,” 47 Jurimetrics J. 357–364 (2007), 359.

  4  

unprecedented  capabilities.  Polymerase  Chain  Reaction  (PCR)  machines—a  device  

capable  of  making  an  exponential  number  of  copies  of  DNA  in  a  matter  of  hours—

and  computer  algorithms  and  online  databases  are  just  some  of  the  examples  of  new  

technologies  that  are  changing  the  ways  in  which  criminal  investigations  are  

conducted.7  As  a  result,  modern  day  crime  labs  have  the  potential  to  extract  valuable  

information  from  seemingly  innocuous  and  oftentimes  microscopic  objects.  A  drop  

of  blood  can  provide  an  investigator  with  information  about  a  suspect  such  as  his  

gender,  medical  history,  and  a  number  of  other  personal  details.  This  process  of  a  

criminal  investigation  is  broken  down  into  two  phases:  identification  and  

comparison.8  These  headings  provide  the  barometer  by  which  forensic  scientists  

measure  their  success  during  a  criminal  investigation—without  successful  

identifications  and  accurate  comparisons,  any  pursuit  of  justice  by  law  enforcement  

officials  is  severely  limited.  The  three  major  mediums  by  which  forensic  scientists  

assist  law  enforcement  officials  in  ascertaining  the  identity  of  a  suspect  are  through  

fingerprint,  DNA,  and  ballistic  analysis.  Unsurprisingly,  these  three  forensic  fields  

are  frequently  used  in  television  shows  to  further  an  episode’s  plot—and  mark  an  

important  occurrence  of  where  television  and  the  media  do  not  accurately  convey  

the  realities  of  these  sciences.  By  analyzing  the  science  behind  these  forensic  

procedures  and  comparing  their  realities  to  their  representations  on  TV,  the  

premise  on  which  the  CSI  Effect  was  constructed  becomes  visible  and  

understandable.    

                                                                                                               7 S.C. Mittal, "Computer Related Crimes,” In Society, Crime, and Prosecution, V. N. Sehgal, (Delhi: Kamla-Raj Enterprises, 2005), 1-32. Print. 8 V. N. Sehgal, and Nath Surinder, "Role of Physical Evidence in Forensic Explorations,” In Society, Crime, and Prosecution, V. N. Sehgal, (Delhi: Kamla-Raj Enterprises, 2005), 87-101. Print.

  5  

A.  Fingerprint  Analysis    

  Fingerprint  analysis  is  a  forensic  technique  that  is  frequently  used  by  

television  crime  shows.  The  detectives  and  crime  scene  investigators  of  NCIS,  Law  

and  Order,  CSI  and  Bones  have  taken  fingerprint  samples  in  countless  episodes  in  an  

attempt  to  ascertain  the  identity  not  only  of  the  victim,  but  also  of  suspects.  Whether  

Dr.  Temperance  Brennan  rehydrates  a  mummified  hand  to  scan  and  match  against  

the  FBI  fingerprint  database  (see  Figure  1),  or  Special  Agent  Timothy  McGee  uses  his  

handheld  fingerprint  scanner  to  get  an  immediate  identification  at  a  crime  scene  

(Figure  2),9  the  good  guys  always  get  a  match  that  invigorates  the  momentum  of  the  

case.  In  realty,  the  science  of  fingerprints  is  nowhere  near  as  consistently  

informative  as  it  is  on  TV.    

           1.  The  Science  Behind  Fingerprints    

  During  embryo  development,  undifferentiated  cells  develop  into  the  three  

tissue  layers  that  comprise  the  human  body:  the  ectoderm,  mesoderm  and  

endoderm.  The  endoderm  will  go  on  to  create  lung,  pancreatic  and  gastrointestinal  

cells,  while  the  mesoderm  will  form  muscle,  cardiac  and  red  blood  cells.  Ectoderm  

germ  layer  cells  develop  into  the  body’s  outermost  cell  layers  including  the  

epidermis  and  dermis.  Between  the  dermis  and  epidermis  lies  a  layer  of  cells  known  

as  the  dermal  papillae.  These  cells,  which  are  configured  into  a  series  of  ridges,  

function  to  supply  blood  and  nutrients  to  the  skin,  and  remain  unchanged  

throughout  an  individual’s  life.10  Fingerprints  are  the  results  of  an  impression  made  

by  these  ridges.  “When  a  medium  from  the  skin—such  as  body  oils,  blood,  or  

                                                                                                               9 NCIS, “Patriot Down,” CBS, May 18, 2010, written by Gary Glasberg, Television. 10 Richard Saferstein, “Fingerprints,” in Criminalistics, (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2011), 393.

  6  

sweat—touches  a  surface,”11  the  print  pattern  is  transferred  and  can  then  be  

observed  and  documented.  There  are  currently  two  different  types  of  fingerprint  

collection:  the  ten-­‐print  identification  system,  which  consists  of  inking  (or  with  

today’s  technology,  scanning)  all  ten  fingers  and  placing  them  on  a  surface  from  

which  a  comparison  can  be  made,  or  by  collecting  latent  prints  which  are  usually  not  

visible  to  the  naked  eye.12  Although  the  latter  type  of  fingerprint  retrieval  is  usually  

more  frequent  during  criminal  investigations,  it  is  less  than  ideal  because  the  prints  

obtained  are  often  distorted  and  may  contain  foreign  particles,  which  interfere  with  

comparison  techniques.      

  Fingerprints  as  a  mechanism  for  identification  is  based  on  the  theory  that  

each  person’s  fingerprints  are  unique.  The  average  fingerprint  has  approximately  

150  individual  ridge  characteristics—bifurcations,  ridge  endings,  enclosures  and  

other  ridge  details  (Figure  3)13—of  which  a  number  must  match  between  two  

samples  in  order  for  a  common  identity  to  be  established.  However,  the  

admissibility  of  this  science  as  proof  of  identification,  although  long  accepted,  is  now  

being  called  into  question.  Currently,  no  comprehensive  study  has  been  conducted  

to  prove  (or  disprove)  that  no  two  fingerprints  are  the  same,14  nor  has  there  been  a  

study  to  determine  how  frequently  different  ridge  characteristics  appear  at  a  given  

                                                                                                               11 Jane Campbell Moriarty and Michael J. Saks, “Forensic Science: Grand Goals, Tragic Flaws, and Judicial Gatekeeping,” Judges’ Journal 44, No.4, (2005): 19. 12 Simon A. Cole, "History of Fingerprint Pattern Recognition," In Automatic Fingerprint Recognition Systems, Nalini K. Ratha and Ruud Bolle, (New York: Springer, 2004), 1-25. Print. 13 Stephanie Rankin, "Forensic Science Glossary." Forensic Science Central, http://forensicsciencecentral.co.uk/glossary.html. 14 Jonathan Jones, "Forensic Tools: What's Reliable and What's Not-So-Scientific," Frontline, April 17, 2012, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/criminal-justice/real-csi/forensic-tools-whats-reliable-and-whats-not-so-scientific/ (accessed April 14, 2013).

  7  

location  on  a  finger.15  As  expected,  none  of  these  realities  are  discussed  or  

mentioned  on  television.      

           2.  Crime  Scene  Fingerprint  Detection  

  Although  it  is  not  within  the  scope  of  this  paper  to  discuss  the  myriad  of  

techniques  available  to  crime  scene  investigators  for  latent  fingerprint  retrieval,  it  is  

important  to  have  a  general  sense  of  the  process  in  order  to  garner  a  comprehensive  

knowledge  of  forensic  fingerprint  identification.    

  Visible  fingerprints  are  rarely  found  at  a  well-­‐executed  crime  scene.  

Consequently,  forensic  technicians  and  detectives  rely  heavily  on  scientific  and  

technological  advances  in  order  to  visualize  latent  prints  inadvertently  left  by  their  

owner.  When  determining  what  method  of  retrieval  to  use,  crime  scene  

investigators  must  classify  the  surface  that  they  are  examining  as  either  hard  and  

non-­‐absorbent  (such  as  glass  and  tile)  or  soft  and  porous  (paper,  cardboard,  cloth  

etc.)16.  After  this  determination,  the  technician  has  a  number  of  different  solvents  

and  detection  methods  at  his  disposal.  Powders  can  be  sprinkled  onto  the  surface  in  

question,  and  using  either  a  special  brush  or  a  magnet,  the  chemical  compounds  will  

adhere  to  the  bodily  secretions  that  comprise  the  latent  fingerprint,  turning  it  into  a  

visible  image.  Additionally,  some  crime  scene  analysts  will  opt  to  use  liquid  or  

gaseous  sprays  in  order  to  reveal  latent  prints.  Super  Glue,  iodine  crystals,  

ninhydrin,  D.F.O.  crystals,  and  physical  developers  are  all  examples  of  products  

available  to  latent  print  retrieval  specialists,  and  these,  like  the  powders,  come  in  a  

variety  of  chemical  compounds  and  react  with  bodily  fluids  on  fingerprints  to  form  

                                                                                                               15 Saferstein, “Fingerprints.” 16 Ibid.

  8  

different  colored  deposits.17,18  High  quality  photographs  are  then  taken  from  a  

number  of  angles  and  sent  to  the  forensics  laboratory  where  a  specialist  will  work  

to  try  and  identify  the  individual  to  whom  the  print(s)  belong.    

           3.  Automated  Fingerprint  Identification    

  The  FBI  first  began  to  use  computers  to  match  fingerprints  in  October  of  

1980,  and  by  July  of  1999,  the  FBI  had  launched  their  Integrated  Automated  

Fingerprint  Identification  System  (IAFIS).  IAFIS  is  the  United  States’  national  

fingerprint  database  that  can  be  accessed  by  law  enforcement  agencies  across  the  

country.  19  Prior  to  this  application  of  technology,  fingerprint  identification  and  

cataloging  was  done  manually  and  often  took  weeks  or  even  months  to  process.  

Now,  as  of  2010,  IAFIS  contains  the  profiles—including  photo  identification,  

physical  characteristics,  criminal  records  and  of  course,  fingerprints—for  more  than  

70  million  criminals  as  well  as  over  34  million  civilians  and  military  personnel.20  In  

addition  to  IAFIS,  there  are  also  independent  fingerprint  databases  that  exist  for  

more  localized  levels  of  law  enforcement  including  regional,  county,  city  and  state.    

  Automated  Fingerprint  Identification  Systems  work  by  scanning  and  digitally  

encoding  fingerprints.  The  technician  begins  by  entering  preliminary  classificatory  

data  including  whether  the  print  is  a  loop,  arch  or  whorl  in  addition  to  of  the  

information  regarding  its  retrieval.  Next,  the  computer  algorithm  will  begin  to  code  

for  recognizable  properties  of  the  print.  Among  the  traits  of  interest  are  ridge  ends                                                                                                                  17 Ibid. 18 Chris Lennard, "The Detection and Enhancement of Latent Fingerprints," Proc. of 13th INTERPOL Forensic Science Symposium, (Lyon, France, Oct. 19 2001), http://latent-prints.com/images/SpecialPresentation.pdf. 19 U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System, http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/fingerprints_biometrics/iafis/iafis (accessed Mar. 23, 2013). 20 Ibid.

  9  

and  bifurcations,  as  well  as  the  orientation  and  directionality  of  these  ridge  

characteristics.  When  investigators  search  for  a  match  for  a  print,  the  computer  

algorithm  compares  these  marked  characteristics  and  produces  a  list  of  possible  

matches  based  on  the  frequency  of  similarities.21  However,  as  previously  mentioned,  

latent  fingerprints  lifted  from  a  crime  scene  are  usually  laden  with  background  

noise  and  other  extraneous  information  that  can  interfere  with  AFIS’  processing  of  

the  print.  Before  the  computer  can  begin  coding  the  fingerprint,  the  technician  must  

use  a  digital  enhancing  program  on  the  fingerprint  to  remove  any  environmental  

elements  interfering  with  the  computer  program’s  ability  to  recognize  minute  

details.  As  the  chief  of  the  FBI  Laboratory's  Latent  Print  Support  Unit  notes,  failure  

to  carefully  edit  the  image  by  removing  “everything  that  isn’t  really  a  fingerprint,  

such  as  dirt  and  digital  noise…will  reduce  the  accuracy  of  this  process  by  about  

thirty  percent.”22  Finally,  after  several  hours  of  searching,  “the  system  provides  a  list  

of  the  most  likely  matches.”23  Yet  even  though  AFIS  did  all  of  the  manual  labor,  

ultimately  it  is  the  examiner  who  must  compare  the  prints  and  use  his  or  her  

expertise  to  determine  whether  or  not  a  match  has  been  made.24  On  television,  these  

realities  are  grossly  misrepresented  (see  figure  4).    

           4.  Television  Exaggerations    

  In  addition  to  the  aforementioned  inconsistencies,  there  are  several  other  

aspects  of  fingerprinting  that  are  erroneously  portrayed  by  the  media.  On  the    

                                                                                                               21 Saferstein, “Fingerprints.” 22 Lamont Wood, "The Reality of Fingerprinting Not Like TV Crime Labs," Live Science, Feb. 24, 2008, http://www.livescience.com/4843-reality-fingerprinting-tv-crime-labs.html, (accessed Feb 18, 2013). 23 Ibid. 24 Moriarty and Saks, “Forensic Science: Grand Goals, Tragic Flaws, and Judicial Gatekeeping,”19.

  10  

episode  of  Law  and  Order  SVU  entitled  “Night”  (Figure  5),  Detectives  Benson  and  

Stabler  are  tasked  with  identifying  a  rapist  and  murderer  who  leaves  stacks  of  

hundred  dollar  bills  on  his  victims’  corpses  which  he  leaves  abandoned  on  street  

corners  in  New  York  City.  As  would  only  happen  on  TV,  after  one  of  his  killings,  the  

perpetrator  used  a  stack  of  “newly  minted”  bills  from  which  the  crime  lab  technician  

was  able  to  extract  fingerprints  from  three  individuals.  Approximately  36  seconds  

from  the  time  the  dollar  bills  were  sprayed  with  Ninhydrin,  the  latent  prints  were  

visible,  photographed,  scanned  into  the  computer,  run  through  IAFIS  and  two  

positive  identifications  were  made.  

     Despite  the  accuracy  of  using  Ninhydrin  as  a  compound  to  detect  latent  

prints,  the  remaining  forensic  elements  in  this  scene  are  dramatized  and  

unrealistically  depicted.  Viewers  are  left  with  the  perception  that  the  evidence  did  

not  require  any  manipulation  or  purification  before  it  was  entered  into  the  

computer  and  analyzed.  Additionally,  two  out  of  the  three  individuals  whose  

fingerprints  were  on  the  money  were  unequivocally  identified,  and  the  presence  of  

their  prints  was  neatly  consistent  with  the  detectives’  theory  of  the  crime.  In  reality,  

even  though  IAFIS  provides  a  list  of  “most  likely  matches,”  there  must  always  be  a  

specialist  who  makes  a  determination  of  common  origin  from  the  computer-­‐

generated  list.25  Moreover,  only  about  26  percent  of  the  cases  in  which  fingerprints  

are  found  yield  identification.  “Even  if  the  prints  are  in  the  system,  they  cannot  

                                                                                                               25 Wood, "The Reality of Fingerprinting Not Like TV Crime Labs."

  11  

always  be  matched  to  the  evidence  print”26  because  they  are  too  blurred,  smeared  

or  fragmented  for  a  sufficient  number  of  similarity  points.      

  Although  the  scenes  from  this  episode  alone  are  not  responsible  for  shaping  

society’s  perception  of  latent  fingerprint  analysis,  religious  viewers  of  Law  and  

Order  SVU  have  learned  to  be  able  to  count  on  Ryan  O'Halloran  and  the  other  

forensic  technicians  to  come  up  with  miracles  and  discover  the  evidence  needed  to  

close  Benson  and  Stablers’  case.  When  you  consider  the  number  of  other  forensic  TV  

dramas,  all  episodes  of  which  inevitably  have  the  same  neat  and  tidy  endings,  it  is  

possible  to  understand  how  the  CSI  Effect  is  a  substantial,  yet  perhaps  subconscious,  

threat  to  our  legal  system.      

B.  DNA  Evidence    

  Blood,  saliva,  semen,  hair  fibers,  mucus,  and  sweat  are  just  some  of  the  many  

samples  of  evidence  that  perpetrators  often  unintentionally  leave  behind  at  crime  

scenes.  What  all  of  these  specimens  have  in  common  is  the  presence  of  the  DNA,  a  

microscopic  biological  entity  that  has  the  potential  to  irrevocably  tie  an  individual  to  

an  act  of  deviance.  To  introduce  their  paper  entitled  Encoded  Evidence:  DNA  in  

Forensic  Analysis,  Mark  Jobling  and  Peter  Gill  quote  Sherlock  Holmes  who  said,  “[i]t  

has  long  been  an  axiom  of  mine  that  the  little  things  are  infinitely  the  most  

important.”27  Little  did  Sir  Arthur  Conan  Doyle  know  that  less  than  a  century  later,  

                                                                                                               26 Ibid. 27 Mark A. Jobling and Peter Gill, “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis,” Nature Reviews, 5 (Oct. 2004) 739-751 http://fire.biol.wwu.edu/trent/trent/NRGforensics.pdf, 739.

  12  

“evidence  invisible  to  the  naked  eye”28  would  become  critical  to  solving  some  of  

society’s  most  puzzling  criminal  investigations.29    

           1.  The  Science  Behind  DNA      

  What  is  DNA:  Deoxyribonucleic  Acid,  or  DNA,  is  a  double-­‐stranded  

macromolecule  found  within  the  cells  of  all  living  organisms,  encoding  an  

individual’s  unique  genetic  information.  Unwound,  DNA  takes  the  form  of  a  ladder:  

two  parallel  lines  joined  together  by  rungs;  however,  it  is  usually  found  in  its  coiled  

state  as  a  double  helix.  DNA  is  a  polymer  that  is  constructed  from  repeating  units  

known  as  nucleotide  monomers.  Each  nucleotide  consists  of  a  five-­‐carbon  sugar,  a  

phosphate  group  and  one  of  four  possible  nitrogenous  bases:  cytosine  (C),  guanine  

(G),  adenine  (A),  and  thymine  (T).  The  sugar  and  phosphate  molecules  bond  

together  to  create  the  double-­‐stranded  backbone  of  DNA,  while  the  nitrogenous  

bases  attach  to  the  sugar  molecules  and  project  inward  (figure  6).  These  bases  

constitute  the  rungs  of  the  DNA  ladder—connecting  the  two  backbones  by  pairing  

together  in  a  predictable  pattern:  A  always  pairs  with  T  and  G  always  pairs  with  

C.30,31,32  In  one  human  cell,  there  are  approximately  three  billion33  nitrogenous  bases  

on  a  single  strand  of  DNA.  Interestingly,  scientists  have  discovered  that  only  two  

percent  of  these  three  billion  As,  Ts,  Cs  and  Gs  are  actually  responsible  “for  

                                                                                                               28 U.S. Department of Justice, NIJ Special Report: Using DNA to Solve Cold Cases, by Sarah V. Hart, et al., NCJ 194197, (Washington DC: July 2002), 1-23. 29 Jobling and Gill, “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis,” 739. 30 Max M. Houck, Forensic Science, Modern Methods of Solving Crimes (Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 2007), Chapter 6, “DNA.” 31 Richard Saferstein, “DNA: The Indispensable Forensic Science Tool,” In Criminalistics, (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2011), 264-295. 32 Neil A. Campbell and Jane B. Reece, Biology, 8th ed, (San Francisco: Pearson Benjamin Cummings, 2009). 33P. P. Vaidyanathan, “Genomics and Proteomics: A Signal Processor’s Tour,” IEEE Circuits and Systems Magazine, fourth quarter, (2004): 6-29, http://authors.library.caltech.edu/9665/1/VAIieeecsm04.pdf.

  13  

translating  DNA  into  the  proteins,  processes  and  functions  of  a  living  cell.”34,35  So,  

what  is  the  function  of  the  remaining  ninety-­‐eight  percent?  Although  it  has  yet  to  be  

understood  in  a  biological  context,  recent  discoveries  have  shown  these  genome  

sequences  to  be  highly  informative  in  forensic  identification.    

  Discovery  of  DNA  Fingerprinting:  In  1984  at  the  University  of  Leicester,  

Alec  Jeffreys  became  responsible  for  the  discovery  of  genetic  fingerprinting36—a  

breakthrough  that  forever  would  redefine  forensic  crime  solving  capabilities.37  This  

revolution  is  based  on  his  finding  of  hyper-­‐variable  minisatellites,  or  “portions  of  the  

DNA  molecule  [which]  contain  sequences  of  letters  that  are  repeated  numerous  

times…  that  seem  to  act  as  fillers  between  the  coding  regions  of  DNA.”38  Despite  the  

fact  that  they  do  not  appear  to  have  a  physiological  purpose,  Jeffreys  hypothesized  

that  the  “level  of  individual  specificity”  39  these  regions  denote  could  provide  means  

by  which  questions  of  identity  could  be  resolved.  Three  years  later,  DNA  evidence  

was  used  for  the  first  time  to  help  obtain  a  conviction.  The  defendant,  Colin  

Pitchfork,  was  found  guilty  of  a  double  rape-­‐homicide  after  investigators  were  able  

to  match  DNA  from  two  different  crime  scenes  to  a  sample  obtained  from  

                                                                                                               34 Max M. Houck, Forensic Science, Modern Methods of Solving Crimes, 104. 35 Greg Elgar and Tanya Vavouri, “Tuning in to the signals: noncoding sequence conservation in vertebrate genomes,” Trends in Genetics 24, No. 7, (July 1, 2008), 344-352, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168952508001510. 36 According to the Oxford English Dictionary, genetic fingerprinting is defined as “the use of genetic characteristics derived from, and typically unique to, an individual… for identification.” http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/77550?redirectedFrom=genetic+fingerprinting#eid3065142. 37 “The History of Genetic Fingerprinting,” University of Leicester, http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/genetics/jeffreys/history-gf. 38 Saferstein, “DNA: The Indispensable Forensic Science Tool,” 270. 39 Giles Newton, “Discovering DNA Fingerprinting,” Wellcome Trust: The Human Genome, (2004), http://genome.wellcome.ac.uk/doc_wtd020877.html.

  14  

Pitchfork.40  Although  the  technique  used  by  Jefferys  since  has  been  made  obsolete,  

the  forensic  science  that  stemmed  from  his  discovery  has  provided  law  enforcement  

officials  with  an  entirely  new  perspective  from  which  they  can  approach  evidence  in  

a  criminal  investigation.  

  Restriction  Fragment  Length  Polymorphisms  (RFLPs):  Certain  regions  of  

DNA  contain  specific  sequences  (anywhere  from  15  to  35  base  pairs  long)  that  are  

recognized  by  endogenous  molecules  called  restriction  enzymes,  which  are  

responsible  for  cutting  DNA  strands  at  these  distinct  nucleotide  base  arrangements  

during  certain  biological  processes.  However,  the  number  of  times  that  a  specific  

sequence  occurs  in  the  genome  varies  from  individual  to  individual.  Restriction  

Fragment  Length  Polymorphisms  (RFLPs)  are  the  “different  fragment  lengths  of  

base  pairs  that  result  from  cutting  a  DNA  molecule  with  restriction  enzymes.”41  

Individuals  who  have  more  repeating  sequences  will  have  more  cuts  in  their  DNA,  

so  forensic  geneticists  are  able  to  include  or  exclude  people  as  suspects  following  an  

analysis  of  this  test.  The  more  restriction  enzyme  recognition  sequences  used,  the  

smaller  the  probability  two  people  will  have  the  same  results.  RFLPs  are  the  original  

technique  with  which  DNA  fingerprinting  was  performed;  however,  there  were  a  

number  of  downsides  to  this  technology—namely,  the  testing  required  large  

quantities  of  DNA,  (as  previously  discussed,  generally  only  fragments  of  DNA  are  

found  at  crime  scenes),  they  take  a  long  time  to  perform,  and  they  are  relatively  

                                                                                                               40 Stephanie Rankin, “Case Study: Colin Pitchfork,” Forensic Science Central, http://forensicsciencecentral.co.uk/colinpitchfork.shtml. 41  Saferstein, “DNA: The Indispensable Forensic Science Tool.”  

  15  

expensive.42,43  The  discovery  of  Short  Tandem  Repeats,  coupled  with  the  improved  

automation  of  performing  Polymerase  Chain  Reactions  paved  the  way  for  the  

current  formula  employed  by  forensic  scientists  for  DNA  fingerprinting.      

  Polymerase  Chain  Reactions  (PCR)  &  Short  Tandem  Repeats  (STRs):    

Polymerase  Chain  Reaction  (PCR)  is  a  method  of  DNA  replication  that  allows  

scientists  to  make  an  exponential  number  of  copies  of  small  DNA  fragments.  The  

process  is  relatively  straightforward:  first  the  DNA  is  exposed  to  a  temperature  of  

94oC—the  temperature  required  to  denature,  or  unwind  and  separate,  the  two  

strands  of  a  DNA  molecule—for  approximately  thirty  seconds.  Immediately  

following  this,  the  temperature  is  reduced  to  anywhere  from  45-­‐65oC,  so  the  

primers  can  attach  to  the  separated  strands  of  DNA  and  begin  the  replication  

process.  Lastly,  the  temperature  is  increased  to  72oC  so  that  the  nitrogenous  bases  

can  attach  themselves  facilitating  DNA  replication.44  For  a  visual  depiction  of  the  

PCR  process,  see  Figure  7.  Thanks  to  the  invention  of  the  DNA  Thermal  Cycler,  a  

machine  that  “automates  the  rapid  and  precise  temperature  changes  required  to  

copy  a  DNA  strand,”  45  performing  PCR  has  become  faster,  easier,  cheaper,  and  more  

consistent.    

  Short  Tandem  Repeats  (STRs)  are  the  intermediary  that  connects  the  process  

of  DNA  fingerprinting  with  the  replicating  capabilities  of  PCR.  They  are  extremely  

short  regions  of  DNA  (less  than  450  base  pairs  long)  that  contain  a  base  pair  

                                                                                                               42 Jobling and Gill, “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” 43 U.S. Department of Justice, NIJ Special Report: Using DNA to Solve Cold Cases, 5. 44 New England Bio Labs, “PCR Protocol for Taq DNA Polymerase with Standard Taq Buffer,” https://www.neb.com/protocols/1/01/01/taq-dna-polymerase-with-standard-taq-buffer-m0273. 45 Saferstein, “DNA: The Indispensable Forensic Science Tool,” 270.

  16  

sequence  (three  to  seven  letters  in  size),  which  is  repeated  a  certain  number  of  

times.46  Because  STRs  are  relatively  small  in  size,  they  are  easily  duplicated  using  

PCR,  meaning  the  sample  fragments  usually  found  at  crime  scenes  now  have  the  

potential  to  be  exceptionally  informative.  Currently,  forensic  scientists  in  the  United  

States  use  13  specific  STR  loci  plus  the  ameliogenin  gene—which  is  able  to  tell  

forensic  scientists  the  individual’s  sex—when  constructing  a  suspect  profile  for  the  

national  DNA  database  (Table  1).47  This  homogenization  of  DNA  characteristics  

provides  forensic  laboratories  the  ability  to  compare  their  DNA  profiles  with  those  

that  have  been  developed  during  other  criminal  investigations.  Once  a  person’s  STR  

profile  is  constructed,  and  a  match  has  been  made,  forensic  geneticists  then  

calculate  the  probability  of  another  individual  within  the  population  having  that  

particular  combination  of  repeats.  The  incidence  of  two  STR  repeats  is  multiplied  

together  to  generate  a  likelihood  of  common  origin.  A  DNA  profile  consisting  of  four  

common  STRs  yields  a  match  probability  of  approximately  one  person  out  of  

10,000;  adding  four  more  loci  reduces  the  match  probability  to  one  in  50  million.48  

Of  course,  these  statistics  assume  there  are  no  lurking  variables  that  will  increase  

the  match  probability,  such  as  DNA  degradation,  or  if  the  two  samples  come  from  

relatives.  Nonetheless,  this  process  of  DNA  proliferation  has  proven  to  be  an  

extremely  effective  and  efficient  tool  to  assist  the  process  of  DNA  identification.      

                                                                                                               46 Ibid., 271. 47 U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on the CODIS Program and the National DNA Index System, http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/biometric-analysis/codis/codis-and-ndis-fact-sheet. 48 Jobling and Gill, “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis,” 742-743.

  17  

  Mitochondrial  DNA  (mtDNA):  Up  until  now,  I  have  been  discussing  genetic  

profiling  using  nuclear  DNA,  or  DNA  that  is  found  within  the  nucleus  of  a  cell.  In  the  

human  body,  however,  there  is  another  type  of  DNA  that  exists  within  a  cellular  

organelle  known  as  a  mitochondrion  (plural:  mitochondria).  The  mitochondria  are  

the  sites  of  cellular  respiration,  the  process  by  which  our  cells  metabolize  the  

nutrients  we  ingest  into  usable  energy.  DNA  inside  the  mitochondria  possesses  

several  different  characteristics  from  nuclear  DNA:  it  is  circular  in  shape,  smaller  in  

size,  has  more  copies,  and  is  only  inherited  from  a  mother.49  It  is  this  final  property  

of  mtDNA  that  is  the  double  edge  sword  for  forensic  identification.  All  relatives  on  

the  maternal  side  have  the  same  mtDNA,  which  makes  it  essentially  impossible  for  

law  enforcement  officials  to  differentiate  a  suspect  from  one  of  his  or  her  relatives—

especially  siblings.  On  the  other  hand,  mitochondrial  DNA  has  a  significantly  greater  

probability  of  surviving  at  a  crime  scene  than  nuclear  DNA,  which  in  many  

situations,  makes  it  the  only  type  of  DNA  available  for  analysis.  One  of  the  most  

famous  instances  in  which  mtDNA  was  used  to  ascertain  the  identity  of  unidentified  

individuals  was  following  the  recovery  of  remains  that  were  believed  to  be  the  

members  of  Russia’s  Romanov  Family.  DNA  samples  were  obtained  from  known  

relatives  of  Queen  Alexandra,  and  provided  confirmation  that  bodies  discovered  did  

in  fact  belong  to  the  murdered  Russian  royal  family.50      

   

 

                                                                                                               49 Houck, Forensic Science, Modern Methods of Solving Crimes, 109. 50 Evgeny I. Rogaev, et al, "Genomic identification in the historical case of the Nicholas II royal family," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 10, No.13 (2009): 5258-5263.

  18  

           2.  Automated  Databases      

  The  Combined  DNA  Index  System,  or  CODIS,  is  the  overarching  name  that  

encompasses  the  United  State’s  entire  DNA  database.  This  software  provides  a  

comprehensive  collection  of  DNA  profiles  originating  from  the  local  (LDIS),  state  

(SDIS)  and  national  (NDIS)  levels  of  criminal  investigation.  By  linking  all  of  these  

jurisdictions  together,  law  enforcement  officials  have  at  their  disposal  a  plethora  of  

information  that  can  hopefully  help  them  achieve  justice  for  victims  and  their  

families.  Within  CODIS  are  three  distinct  databases:  the  convicted  offender  index,  

the  missing  persons  index  and  the  forensic  index.    

  The  convicted  offender  index  contains  the  DNA  profiles  of  individuals  who  

have  been  arrested  for  or  convicted  of  a  variety  of  crimes.  Currently,  all  50  states  

require  DNA  samples  from  individuals  convicted  of  felonies,  but  every  state  has  a  

different  threshold  for  misdemeanor  offenses  that  qualify  for  the  acquisition  of  a  

suspect’s  DNA.51  However,  as  the  National  Institute  of  Justice  predicted  back  in  

2002,  “as  states  continue  to  recognize  the  crime-­‐solving  potential  of  DNA  databases,  

they  continue  to  expand  the  scope  of  their  convicted  offender  legislation.”52  In  June  

of  2013,  the  Supreme  Court  ruled  that  it  is  legal  for  police  officers  to  obtain  a  DNA  

sample  from  an  individual  who  had  been  arrested  but  not  convicted  of  a  crime.53  

This  decision  will  almost  certainly  guarantee  an  influx  in  the  number  of  entries  

within  the  convicted  offender  index  of  CODIS—however,  given  this  development,  it  

might  be  prudent  for  them  to  rename  this  portion  of  the  database.    

                                                                                                               51 Merritt Melancon, “DNA base will grow, but some want more data,” Athens Banner-Herald Online, May 29, 2011, http://onlineathens.com/stories/052911/new_836502644.shtml. 52 U.S. Department of Justice, NIJ Special Report: Using DNA to Solve Cold Cases, 10-11. 53 Maryland v. King, 133 S. Ct. 1236 (2012).

  19  

  The  missing  persons  index  is  further  broken  down  into  the  unidentified  

index  and  the  reference  index.  The  unidentified  index  contains  DNA  profiles  from  

crime  scenes  in  which  a  victim’s  identity  has  not  been  established,  and  the  reference  

index  contains  both  mitochondrial  and  nuclear  DNA  profiles  from  family  members  

of  a  missing  person.    

  Within  the  forensic  index  lie  all  DNA  profiles  that  have  been  generated  from  

biological  evidence  discovered  at  crime  scenes.  Possibilities  of  evidence  that  can  

contain  informative  DNA  can  found  in  Table  2.      

  Law  enforcement  officials  and  forensic  technicians  search  the  CODIS  

database  in  hopes  of  connecting  two  crimes  together.  To  do  so,  the  computer  must  

search  amongst  10,477,600  offender  profiles,  1,578,800  arrestee  profiles  and  

504,700  forensic  profiles.54  If  the  software  detects  a  hit,  then  the  geneticists  will  

perform  the  necessary  tests  to  confirm  that  a  match  has  been  made.  Once  detectives  

have  obtained  confirmation  from  the  scientist,  “that  information  is  used  as  probable  

cause  to  obtain  a  new  DNA  sample  from  that  suspect  so  the  match  can  be  confirmed  

by  the  crime  laboratory  before  an  arrest  is  made.”55  As  of  September  2013,  CODIS  

has  provided  identification  information  for  more  than  213,500  investigations  and  

has  yielded  over  222,600  hits.56  Although  these  numbers  currently  are  quite  small  

compared  to  the  IAFIS  database’s  statistics,  with  every  entry  that  is  entered  into  

CODIS,  the  more  successful  the  technology  has  the  potential  to  become,  especially  

                                                                                                               54 U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, CODIS—NDIS Statistics, http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/biometric-analysis/codis/ndis-statistics. 55 US Department of Justice, NIJ Special Report: Using DNA to Solve Cold Cases, 10. 56 U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, CODIS—NDIS Statistics,

  20  

given  the  recidivistic  nature  of  many  crimes  in  which  DNA  is  present.57  According  to  

the  National  Institute  of  Justice,  “a  likelihood  exists  that  the  individual  who  

committed  the  crime  being  investigated…already  has  his  or  her  DNA  profile  in  a  

DNA  database  that  can  be  searched  by  CODIS.  These  possibilities  have  inspired  law  

enforcement  agencies  throughout  the  country  to  reevaluate  cases  previously  

thought  unsolvable.”58  

           3.  Television  Exaggerations  

  Unlike  the  other  two  forensic  sciences  mentioned  in  this  paper,  television’s  

implementation  of  DNA  in  its  forensic  investigation  remains  largely  faithful  to  its  

real  life  capabilities  and  applications.  The  actual  science  of  DNA  identification  is  

accurately  conveyed,  and  there  are  even  episodes  of  shows  in  which  the  characters  

stumble  upon  a  novel  use  of  DNA.  For  example,  in  the  season  11  episode  of  Law  and  

Order  SVU  entitled  “Perverted,”  protagonist  and  kick-­‐ass  detective  Olivia  Benson  

becomes  a  murder  suspect,  despite  her  insistence  that  she  is  innocent.  However,  

upon  the  discovery  of  her  DNA  on  the  murder  weapon,  Sergeant  Ed  Tucker  of  the  

Internal  Affairs  Bureau  for  the  New  York  Police  Department  arrests  her  for  first-­‐

degree  murder.  Overturning  every  rock,  Olivia’s  colleagues  look  for  any  possible  

explanation  that  could  exonerate  her.  Finally,  the  Medical  Examiner  proudly  

announces  that  she  has  discovered  an  anomaly.  According  to  Dr.  Warner,  “in  normal  

DNA,  about  80%  of  the  markers  are  methylated;  in  Liv’s  sample  on  the  knife,  none  of  

                                                                                                               57U.S. Department of Justice: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Recidivism, http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=17. 58 U.S. Department of Justice, NIJ Special Report: Using DNA to Solve Cold Cases, 2,9.

  21  

them  are.”59  Her  discovery  prompted  further  investigation  and  a  call  to  Israel,  where  

she  discovered  scientists  who  are  able  to  fabricate  DNA  evidence.  This  procedure  

allows  anybody  to  take  a  sample  of  someone’s  DNA,  spin  out  the  white  blood  cells—

which  are  the  only  components  in  blood  that  contain  DNA—and  be  left  with  blood  

that  does  not  have  any  DNA  in  it.  The  scientist  is  then  able  to  take  another  person’s  

DNA,  conduct  PCR  amplification  on  it,  and  insert  that  DNA  into  the  blank  canvas.  In  

other  words,  the  right  buyer  can  have  someone  framed  for  murder  with  the  

presence  of  irrefutable  DNA  evidence.  As  Detective  Elliot  Stabler  said  earlier  in  the  

episode,  “all  juries  want  to  hear  about  is  DNA.”60  Normally  the  forensic  scientists  on  

these  types  of  television  shows  are  able  to  give  jurors  exactly  what  it  is  they  want;  

this  episode,  on  the  other  hand,  is  a  rare  example  of  an  instance  in  which  even  the  

experts  were  fooled  by  forensic  science  and  struggled  to  find  the  happy  ending  for  

which  everyone  (characters  and  viewers  alike)  was  hoping.    

  Although  I  have  conceded  that  the  science  of  DNA  is  for  the  most  part  

accurately  deployed  in  these  television  shows,  there  are  still  some  examples  of  

impropriety  pertaining  to  its  portrayal.  Most  notably,  is  the  frequency  with  which  

the  detectives  use  DNA  to  assist  their  investigations.  In  season  eight  of  Law  and  

Order:  SVU,  DNA  was  used  in  13  out  of  a  total  of  22  episodes.  For  viewers  who  have  

seen  all  or  even  most  of  the  more  than  300  episodes  of  this  series,  one  of  the  

takeaways  is  that  DNA  is  readily  available  and  frequently  leads  to  the  identification  

and  subsequent  arrest  of  the  criminal.  For  example,  in  the  season  eight  episode  

                                                                                                               59 Law and Order: Special Victims Unit, “Perverted,” NBC, Nov. 18, 2009, written by Dawn DeNoon, Television. 60 Ibid.

  22  

entitled  “Haystack,”  the  Crime  Scene  Investigation  Unit  is  able  to  find  a  strand  of  

hair  on  the  fire  escape  of  a  building  in  which  a  baby  boy  was  kidnapped.  

Fortuitously,  viable  DNA  was  able  to  be  extracted  from  the  hair  fiber.  A  chance  

conversation  between  an  old  friend  of  the  missing  baby’s  mother  and  the  SVU  

detectives  leads  their  investigation  to  focus  on  a  man  named  Patty.  When  detective  

Stabler  asks  the  friend  if  he  has  any  idea  where  to  find  “Patty,”  the  friend  jokes  

“probably  in  jail.”  From  there,  the  Y  chromosome  from  the  DNA  found  on  the  hair  

allows  the  detectives  to  search  for  any  male  relatives  of  the  suspect  in  CODIS  due  to  

the  fact  that  every  male  inherits  an  exact  copy  of  his  father’s  Y  chromosome.  As  

expected,  all  of  the  stars  align  and  the  detectives  end  up  apprehending  the  owner  of  

the  DNA  sample,  who  turns  out  to  be  the  individual  guilty  of  kidnapping  the  child.61    

  This  episode  recap  serves  as  just  one  example  of  TV’s  use  of  DNA  that  

miraculously  leads  to  a  resolution  of  the  investigation.  All  of  the  stars  aligned  for  the  

detectives  as  they  traced  down  a  feeble  lead  resulting  from  a  single  hair  fiber  on  the  

balcony.  It’s  lucky  that  it  was  not  a  windy  day  in  NYC,  and  a  huge  coincidence  that  

the  hair  fiber  fell  from  the  suspect’s  head  with  its  root  in  tact  (which  is  where  the  

DNA  is).  However,  for  individuals  who  do  not  analyze  every  act  of  fate  or  

coincidence  that  occurs  in  these  television  shows,  it  is  extremely  plausible  for  them  

to  develop  expectations  that  DNA  can  be  found  and  will  lead  to  the  person  

responsible.  The  results  that  are  generated  and  consistently  generate  informative  

leads  augment  the  exaggerated  platform  of  forensic  science  on  which  the  CSI  Effect  

is  built.  

                                                                                                               61 Law and Order: Special Victims Unit, “Haystack,” NBC, Feb 20, 2007, written by Amanda Green, Television.

  23  

 

 

C.  Ballistics      

  Ballistics  is  the  branch  of  forensic  science  that  examines  firearms  and  

ammunition  in  an  attempt  to  ascertain  or  confirm  the  identity  of  a  gun  believed  to  

have  been  used  to  commit  a  crime.  Just  as  assertions  have  been  made  that  no  two  

fingerprints  are  the  same,  it  has  been  contended,  and  accepted,  that  the  internal  

components  of  every  gun  are  different.  As  a  result,  prosecutors  have  been  able  to  

build  criminal  cases  using  the  testimony  and  scientific  findings  of  ballistics  experts.    

           1.  Firearm  Characteristics    

  Class  Characteristics:  Firearm  class  characteristics  refer  to  common  

properties  shared  by  all  guns  that  belong  to  the  same  “family”  and  are  created  using  

the  same  production  process.  Gun  companies  are  able  to  choose  from  a  wide  variety  

of  manufacturing  techniques  in  order  to  best  meet  production  demands  and  

individualize  their  weapons’  projectile  characteristics  (such  as  direction  and  rate  of  

twist).  The  inside  of  a  gun  barrel—called  the  bore—is  made  by  a  drill  that  hollows  

out  a  rod  of  steel  (Figure  8).  Once  the  company  has  chosen  a  bore  design,  the  class  

characteristics  will  remain  consistent  for  the  duration  of  production.  For  example,  

“.32-­‐caliber  Smith  &  Wesson  revolvers  have  five  lands  and  grooves  twisting  to  the  

right,  [while]  Colt  .32-­‐caliber  revolvers  exhibit  six  lands  and  grooves  twisting  to  the  

left.”62  Class  characteristics  allow  forensic  firearms  experts  to  differentiate  one  .32-­‐

                                                                                                               62 Richard Saferstein, “Firearms, tool marks, and other impressions,” In Criminalistics, (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2011), 420.

  24  

caliber  brand  from  another,  but  they  alone  cannot  provide  clues  to  differentiate  the  

identity  of  one  .32-­‐caliber  Colt  revolver  from  another.    

  Subclass  Characteristics:  Subclass  characteristics  are  bore  markings  that  

are  found  on  a  group  of  successively  manufactured  weapons  belonging  to  the  same  

gun  class.  These  properties  of  gun  barrels  are  the  result  of    “imperfections  of  a  

rifling  tool  that  imparts  similar  tool  marks  on  a  number  of  barrels  before  being  

modified  either  through  use  or  refinishing.”63  Although  blemishes  are  frequently  

misclassified  as  individual  characteristics  (see  below),  differentiating  between  the  

two  is  relatively  straightforward.  Subclass  characteristics  are  visible  along  the  entire  

length  of  the  bore  whereas  individual  characteristics  are  irregularly  and  

inconsistently  located.  This  accounts  for  the  presence  of  the  same  subclass  

characteristics  on  guns  rifled  in  succession.64  Subclass  characteristics  provide  an  

additional  level  of  identifying  marks  that  ballistics  experts  can  use  for  inclusionary  

or  exclusionary  purposes.    

  Individual  Characteristics:  Individual  characteristics  are  the  most  unique  

subset  of  markings  found  on  the  inside  of  a  gun  barrel.  These  striations  are  the  

result  of  imperfections  in  the  tools  used  to  make  the  bore’s  lands  and  grooves,  and  

can  also  arise  when  the  steel  of  the  barrel  chips  off  either  during  manufacturing  or  

from  use.65  According  to  Al  Biasotti,  the  presence  of  individual  characteristics  is  

essentially  guaranteed  due  to  the  “random  nature  and  rapidity  with  which  the  

                                                                                                               63 Ronald G. Nichols, "Defending the Scientific Foundations of the Firearms and Tool Mark Identification Discipline: Responding to Recent Challenges," Journal of Forensic Sciences 52.3 (2007): 586-94, Print, 587. 64 Ibid. 65 Saferstein, “Firearms, tool marks, and other impressions,” 420-421.

  25  

toolmarks  produced  by  ‘cut’  type  rifling  methods  change.”66  As  a  result,  no  two  guns,  

even  those  manufactured  successively  have  indistinguishable  striation  patterns.    

           2.  Scientific  Theory  Behind  Ballistics    

  The  combination  of  class,  subclass  and  individual  characteristics  are  

responsible  for  the  unique,  identifiable  properties  of  every  gun  manufactured.  

Before  a  gun  is  fired,  a  cartridge,  which  is  comprised  of  a  case,  primer,  propellant  

such  as  gunpowder,  and  a  bullet,  is  moved  into  a  firing  chamber  either  manually  or  

by  the  gun’s  magazine.  When  the  trigger  is  pulled,  the  firing  pin  causes  the  primer  to  

mix  with  the  gunpowder,  inducing  a  combustion  reaction  propelling  the  bullet  from  

its  chamber  down  the  barrel  and  out  of  the  muzzle.  As  the  bullet  spins  through  the  

barrel,  it  makes  contact  with  the  bore  whose  striations  create  an  impression  on  the  

projectile.  Because  every  gun  has  its  own,  unique  bore  markings,  no  two  bullets  can  

have  the  same  striations  unless  they  were  fired  from  the  same  gun  (Figure  9).              

  As  expected,  many  people  have  challenged  the  legitimacy  of  the  scientific  

premise  on  which  ballistics  is  built.  Among  the  criticisms  are  1)  the  tool  markings  

and  striations  between  two  firearms  are  not  sufficiently  different,  and  2)  changes  in  

the  firearm  over  time,  such  as  the  accumulation  of  dirt  and  rust  from  continued  use,  

affect  the  identification  process  by  disguising  the  unique  bore  markings.67  However,  

independently  conducted  experiments  have  been  able  to  refute  these  concerns  by  

                                                                                                               66 Nichols, "Defending the Scientific Foundations of the Firearms and Tool Mark Identification Discipline: Responding to Recent Challenges," 587, citing Al Biasotti: “Rifling methods—a review and assessment of the individual characteristics produced. AFTE J 1981; 13(3). 67 Ibid., 586.

  26  

proving  that  although  barrel  markings  can  change  slightly  over  time,  these  

variations  are  not  dramatic  enough  to  obfuscate  any  identification  tests.68,69        

           3.  Automated  Databases    

  Class  characteristics  are  catalogued  by  the  FBI’s  General  Rifling  

Characteristics  File  database.  This  allows  firearm  technicians  to  compare  their  

samples’  lands  and  grooves  against  known  manufacturing  characteristics.  Searches  

in  this  database  usually  yield  preliminary  information  about  a  weapon  to  help  

narrow  the  focus  of  the  detectives’  investigation.    

  The  National  Integrated  Ballistic  Information  Network  (NIBIN)  is  a  

nationwide  database  jointly  operated  by  the  FBI  and  ATFE  (Alcohol,  Tobacco,  

Firearms  and  Explosives  branch  of  the  US  Department  of  Justice).  Since  its  launch  in  

1999,  over  1,612,000  pieces  of  evidence  have  been  entered  and  more  than  35,000  

hits70  have  been  made  by  law  enforcement  officials.71  This  database  relies  on  the  

individual  characteristics  of  firearms  and  bullets  when  trying  to  determine  whether  

or  not  two  samples  share  a  common  origin.  When  a  bullet  is  retrieved  from  a  crime  

scene,  forensic  firearms  experts  are  able  to  digitally  scan  and  encode  its  

characteristics  by  using  a  laser  that  isolates  the  striations.  The  computer  program  

                                                                                                               68 Ibid. 69 Saferstein, “Firearms, tool marks, and other impressions.” 70 According to ATF, a hit is defined as “a linkage of two different crime scene investigations where previously there had been no known connection between the investigations.” It is important to note that a hit is a linkage between CASES, not individual pieces of evidence. http://www.nibin.gov/about/program-overview/guidance-for-hit-reporting.html 71 U.S. Department of Justice: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, NIBIN - National Integrated Ballistic Information Network: Program Overview, http://www.nibin.gov/about/program-overview.

  27  

then  “rotates,  maps  and  records  the  significant  areas  on  the  bullet’s  surface.”72  

These  characteristics  are  then  compared  against  the  database’s  other  entries.  As  is  

the  case  with  IAFIS,  if  the  computer  generates  a  list  of  potential  matches,  it  is  only  

after  the  firearms  technician  has  personally  compared  the  two  samples  that  a  match  

can  be  declared.      

           4.  Television  Exaggerations    

  Guns  are  a  popular  choice  of  murder  weapon  on  television.  They  are  

dramatic,  mildly  gory,  and  relatively  simple  to  use  (in  an  episode  of  Law  and  Order  

SVU,  a  seven  year  old  boy  “accidentally”  kills  his  classmate  with  one).73  However,  

just  as  with  fingerprints,  the  portrayals  are  not  entirely  accurate  and  subsequently  

contribute  to  the  public’s  false  understanding  about  the  actual  capabilities  of  

forensic  ballistic  analysis.    

  The  NCIS  episode  “One  Shot,  One  Kill,”  tells  the  story  of  how  Special  Agent  

Gibbs’  team  identifies  and  stops  a  rooftop  sniper  who  killed  a  marine  Gunnery  

Sergeant  working  in  a  Washington  D.C.  recruitment  office.  Upon  their  arrival  at  the  

crime  scene,  the  agents  are  able  to  find  the  projectile  that  killed  their  victim  

relatively  easily;  however  at  the  time,  they  are  unaware  that  the  murder  was  

committed  by  a  sniper.  This  information  is  discovered  by  forensic  scientist  

extraordinaire  Abby  Sciuto,  who  uses  physics,  computer  programming,  backwards  

logic,  and  sheer  speculation  to  determine  this  detail.  In  reality,  this  demonstration  of  

                                                                                                               72 U.S. Department of Justice: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Automated Firearms Ballistics Technology, http://www.nibin.gov/about/program-overview/automated-firearms-ballistics-technology.html. 73 Law and Order SVU, “Baby Killer,” NBC, Nov. 17, 2000, written by Dawn DeNoon and Lisa Marie Petersen, Television.

  28  

perfect  science  would  never  really  occur.  The  number  of  variables  and  mitigating  

circumstances  that  would  have  to  coincide  without  a  single  mistake  is  far  too  

idealistic  and  virtually  improbable  of  happening  in  reality.  Additionally,  the  writers  

of  the  episode  impart  a  second  case  of  misinformation  about  forensic  ballistics  when  

the  team  must  investigate  the  murder  of  the  sniper’s  second  victim.  The  agents  are  

shown  on  their  hands  and  knees  searching  the  office  for  the  bullet.  Finally,  Special  

Agent  Caitlin  Todd  finds  a  bullet  hole  in  the  wall  behind  the  desk  where  the  victim  

was  sitting.  Using  a  pair  of  tweezers,  she  carefully  excises  the  bullet  that  had  been  

lodged  several  centimeters  in  the  wall  (see  figure  10).  This  evidence  recovery  is  

procedurally  incorrect.  In  a  real  life  scenario,  not  only  would  it  be  a  trained  crime  

scene  investigator  retrieving  the  bullet  instead  of  a  law  enforcement  official  working  

the  case,  but  also  tweezers  would  not  be  used!  Tweezers,  or  any  similar  type  of  

instrument,  could  leave  markings  on  the  bullet  that  would  mar  the  bore  impressions  

from  the  gun,  thus  complicating  the  comparison  tests  needed  to  confirm  that  the  

two  murders  were  committed  using  the  same  weapon.74  As  expected,  on  NCIS,  the  

repercussions  of  this  mistake  are  neither  addressed  nor  affect  the  resolution  of  this  

case.  In  a  real  investigation,  however,  such  a  seemingly  minor  mishandling  of  

evidence  can  and  will  be  exaggerated  by  the  defense,  resulting  in  the  evidence  

possibly  being  thrown  out  as  well  as  the  case  being  potentially  dismissed.  Moreover,  

the  human  aspect  of  real  life  crime  scene  evidence  recoveries  makes  these  types  of  

mistakes  much  more  frequent  and  plausible  than  the  carefully  scripted  actions  of  

television  characters.    

                                                                                                               74 Saferstein, “Firearms, tool marks, and other impressions.”  

  29  

D.  Relevance      

  These  three  examples  of  forensic  identification  techniques  highlight  some  of  

the  most  common  discrepancies  between  real  life  forensics  and  the  science  seen  on  

television.  They  provide  concrete  examples  as  to  how  jurors  who  watch  these  

television  shows  are  misled,  thereby  creating  the  foundation  off  of  which  the  CSI  

Effect  is  constructed.    

III.  THE  CSI  EFFECT  

  According  to  the  San  Diego  Tribune,  “during  one  week  in  September  2005,  

there  were  63  homicides  on  forensic  television  shows  during  prime  time  viewing  

hours  on  six  broadcast  networks.”75  This  number  is  more  than  double  the  amount  of  

crime  dramas  on  TV  in  2004,76  and  the  number  has  continued  to  rise  into  the  

primetime  television  schedule  of  2013.  Currently  CBS’s  primetime  television  show  

NCIS  is  ranked  as  the  number  one  most  watched  primetime  drama  according  to  the  

Nielsen  ratings  with  over  14  million  viewers  every  Tuesday  night.77  Shows  such  as  

Bones,  SVU  and  CSI  are  also  successes  for  their  networks’  ratings,  with  each  bringing  

in  around  five  to  eight  million  viewers  on  average  weekly.78  Given  the  undeniable  

popularity  of  this  genre,  there  is  concern  among  some  pundits  and  some  in  the  

judicial  system  that  potential  jurors  in  criminal  cases  may  have  biases  and  

                                                                                                               75 Evan W. Durnal, "Crime Scene Investigation (as Seen on TV)," Forensic Science International, 199 (University of Central Missouri, Criminal Justice Department, 2010), Print, 1-5. 76 M. L. P. Robbers, "Blinded by Science: The Social Construction of Reality in Forensic Television Shows and Its Effect on Criminal Jury Trials," Criminal Justice Policy Review 19.1 (2008): 84-102, 84 citing (Bauder, 2005). 77 Nielsen Ratings, “Tops of 2013: TV and Social Media,” http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/newswire/2013/tops-of-2013-tv-and-social-media.html, (accessed Dec. 20, 2013) 78 Amanda Kondolojy “TV By the Numbers: TV Ratings,” Zap2it, http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/, (accessed November 22, 2013).

  30  

preconceptions  as  a  result  of  the  portrayal  of  forensic  evidence  in  the  media.  This  

phenomenon  is  generally  referred  to  as  the  CSI  Effect.  Proponents  of  the  CSI  Effect  

hypothesize  that  the  depiction  of  forensics  that  is  beyond  the  scope  of  real  science  

increases  the  burden  of  a)  the  prosecution  by  elevating  a  jury’s  expectations  

regarding  the  conclusiveness  of  forensic  evidence  presented  at  trial,  or  b)  the  

defense  by  causing  the  jurors  to  place  too  much  faith  in  the  accuracy  and  reliability  

of  forensic  science.  In  the  following  subsections—A  and  B—I  will  lay  out  the  

arguments  made  by  scholars  that  support  each  side  of  the  CSI  Effect.  Section  V  will  

explain  the  fallacies  that  cripple  these  arguments.    

A.  Hypothesis  1:  Increase  on  the  Prosecution’s  Burden      

  With  each  hour-­‐long  episode  of  shows  such  as  Bones,  Law  and  Order  SVU,  or  

N.C.I.S.,  viewers  are  exposed  to  criminal  behavior  where  justice  is  achieved.  Diligent  

police  work  leading  to  the  discovery  of  conclusive  evidence  flawlessly  tested  and  

analyzed  by  the  amiable  forensic  scientists  are  all  that  these  dramas  need  to  give  

their  story  lines  a  resolution  and  their  characters  a  sense  of  accomplishment.  This  

reliability  of  closure  has  prompted  Tom  Tyler  and  other  CSI  Effect  researchers  to  

speculate  that,  “the  millions  of  people  who  watch  these  series  develop  unrealistic  

expectations  about  the  type  of  evidence  typically  available  during  trials,  which,  in  

turn,  increases  the  likelihood  that  they  will  have  a  ‘reasonable  doubt’  about  a  

defendant’s  guilt.”79  This  theory  of  the  CSI  Effect  predicts  that  viewers  are  loyal  to  

the  fictional  representations  of  the  as  seen  on  TV  criminal  proceedings  and  as  a  

                                                                                                               79 Tom R. Tyler, "Viewing CSI and the Threshold of Guilt: Managing Truth and Justice in Reality and Fiction," The Yale Law Journal, 115 (2006): 1050-085, JSTOR, Web, Feb. 12 2013, 1052

  31  

result,  the  burden  of  the  prosecution  to  prove  a  defendant’s  guilt  is  significantly  

increased.    

  One  reason  why  advocates  of  the  CSI  Effect  think  the  prosecution  is  having  a  

harder  time  convicting  defendants  is  because  viewers  are  engrossed  and  captivated  

by  the  naïve  and  unrealistic  notion  that  forensic  evidence  is  readily  available  for  any  

given  investigation.80  In  truth,  evidence  is  often  contaminated,  inconclusive,  deemed  

unnecessary  for  the  criminal  proceedings,  or  just  non-­‐existent.  This  reality  

undermines  a  juror’s  expectations  and  can  even  lead  him  to  believe  that  the  absence  

of  forensics  is  due  to  anything  from  sloppy  police  work,81  to  evidence  of  the  

defendant’s  innocence.  On  TV  police  shows  there  are  rarely  episodes  in  which  

charges  are  dismissed  due  to  lack  of  evidence,  and  in  these  idyllic  situations,  if  there  

is  evidence,  the  show’s  crime  fighting  heroes  will  find  it.  In  a  surprising  interview,  

Joseph  Peterson  of  the  Department  of  Criminal  Justice  at  the  University  of  Illinois-­‐

Chicago  reveals,  “DNA  [is]  rarely  culled  from  crime  scenes  and  analyzed…[and]  

blood  [i]s  usually  found  only  five  percent  of  the  time  at  murder  scenes.”82  These  are  

just  some  of  the  ways  in  which  the  lack  of  forensic  evidence  underwhelms  jurors  

who  are  accustomed  to  the  certainty  presented  on  TV.  As  a  result,  when  real  life  

criminal  proceedings  inevitably  do  not  follow  the  forensic  formulas  seen  on  

television,  prosecutors  find  themselves  having  to  use  negative  witnesses—a  person  

called  to  testify  to  explain  to  those  present  at  the  trial  why  forensic  tests  were  not  

                                                                                                               80 Podlas, "The CSE Effect: Exposing the Media Myth," 434. 81 Robbers, "Blinded by Science: The Social Construction of Reality in Forensic Television Shows and Its Effect on Criminal Jury Trials," 91. 82 Kit R. Roane, “The CSI Effect,” U.S. News and World Report, Apr. 17, 2005, online edition, http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/Alumni_Affairs/Stith_Roane_The_CSI_Effect-_US_News_and_World_Report.pdf, (accessed Feb. 26 2013).

  32  

conducted83—more  frequently  in  an  attempt  to  explain  away  the  stigmas  

surrounding  the  lack  of  forensic  evidence.  Additionally,  it  is  becoming  increasingly  

necessary  for  judges  to  give  “specific  instructions  in  every  criminal  case  that  jurors  

should  not  expect  the  type  of  forensic  evidence  they  see  on  television  shows  and  

often  have  to  go  through  the  evidence  with  the  jury  to  make  certain  they  are  not  

holding  trial  evidence  to  television  standards.”84  Proponents  of  this  side  of  the  CSI  

Effect  believe  that  every  time  a  negative  witness  is  used,  or  a  judge  must  provide  

cautionary  instructions,  their  notion  of  increased  prosecutorial  burden  is  reinforced.    

  Defense  attorneys  are  able  to  further  undermine  the  credibility  of  forensic  

evidence  by  simply  insinuating  the  possibility  of  error  on  the  part  of  the  crime  scene  

evidence  collector,  forensic  lab  or  scientist,  as  was  the  case  during  the  trial  of  O.J.  

Simpson.  Following  the  prosecution’s  presentation  of  DNA  evidence  that  linked  

Simpson  to  the  crime  scene,  a  large  segment  of  the  public  was  ardently  convinced  of  

his  guilt.  However,  the  defense  presented  its  case  by  suggesting  that  the  forensic  

technician  who  tested  the  evidence  contaminated  the  sample.  This  contamination,  

they  argued,  led  to  the  identification  of  Simpson.  As  a  result,  reasonable  doubt  was  

introduced  and  the  defendant  was  acquitted.85  On  TV,  viewers  get  frustrated  when  

the  defendant’s  lawyers  argue  that  the  police  or  forensic  scientists  mishandled  

evidence  or  messed  up  their  analysis  of  the  sample.  Not  only  are  these  sinister  

creatures  attacking  the  credibility  and  reliability  of  the  show’s  beloved  characters,                                                                                                                  83 Robbers, "Blinded by Science: The Social Construction of Reality in Forensic Television Shows and Its Effect on Criminal Jury Trials," 93. 84 Durnal, "Crime Scene Investigation (as Seen on TV)," 3. 85 The glove that the prosecution also admitted into evidence also contributed to his acquittal. During the trial, it was shown that the glove didn’t fit Simpson because the leather stiffened and shrank. This inconsistency was the inspiration behind the famous saying by Johnnie Cochran one of his lawyers, “if it doesn’t fit you must acquit”

  33  

but  the  audience  is  equipped  with  a  third  person  omniscient  perspective  that  allows  

them  to  have  seen  the  defendant  committing  the  crime  earlier  in  the  episode.  In  real  

life,  these  luxuries  re  not  afforded  to  jurors,  and  as  a  result,  even  the  slightest  

suggestion  of  impropriety  can  be  enough  to  disintegrate  the  trust  jurors  placed  in  

scientific  evidence.  This  is  especially  true  if  the  evidence  lacked  the  statistical  

certainty  that  normally  existed  on  TV.    

  Another  area  in  which  television  shows  are  allegedly  contributing  to  the  

prosecution’s  increased  burden  is  through  their  failure  to  depict  some  of  the  

shortcomings  faced  by  modern  science.  In  real  life,  there  are  a  number  of  different  

ways  in  which  the  results  of  a  single  forensic  test  can  be  interpreted.  This  stems  

from  the  more  pronounced,  active  human  component  involved  in  actual  forensics.  

While  it  is  true  there  is  an  actress  playing  the  forensic  scientist  on  TV,  she  is  merely  

the  intermediary  who  communicates  the  scientific  findings  that  steer  the  detectives  

in  the  right  direction.  The  machines  do  most  of  the  work,  which  further  conveys  the  

notion  that  all  of  the  test  results  are  both  accurate  and  objective.  In  reality,  the  

ability  to  extract  any  valuable  information  lies  in  the  capabilities  of  the  scientist.  She  

must  tell  her  equipment  what  tests  to  run  on  a  piece  of  evidence,  and  she  must  

interpret  the  results  and  sometimes  extrapolate  conclusions.  As  Evan  Durnal  notes,  

“although  it  is  true  that  physical  evidence  itself  cannot  lie…  it  is  up  to  human  

interpretation  to  determine  what  that  piece  of  evidence  is  saying.”  Dr.  Kimberlianne  

Podlas  agrees,  remarking  that,  “forensic  conclusions  are  only  as  good  as  the  

technicians  who  retrieve  the  evidence,  test  it,  and  draw  conclusions  from  it.”86  Just  

                                                                                                               86 Podlas, "The CSE Effect: Exposing the Media Myth,"438, (citing Cooley).

  34  

as  jurors  may  be  biased  by  their  CSI  expectations,  forensic  technicians,  too,  may  be  

vulnerable  and,  therefore,  unduly  influenced  in  their  testing.  Studies  have  shown  

that  it  is  essentially  impossible  for  individuals  to  compartmentalize  the  information  

they  hear  outside  of  the  investigation  or  criminal  proceedings.87  As  a  result,  when  a  

fingerprint  specialist  is  comparing  the  whorls  and  loops  of  sample  A  to  those  of  

sample  B  it  is  possible—regardless  of  whether  or  not  it  was  her  intention—that  she  

sees  something  which  is  not  there  as  a  result  of  the  bias  implanted  by  the  media’s  

investigation  coverage.88  If  the  media  suggests  that  the  suspect  in  question  is  most  

likely  guilty  of  the  crime,  then  the  analyst  might  recall  this  information,  even  

subconsciously,  and  deem  his  fingerprints  close  enough  to  the  sample  taken  from  the  

crime  scene.  It  can  also  be  argued  that  the  fingerprint  expert  thinks  that  he  has  to  be  

able  to  find  a  match  because  Abby  on  NCIS  would  certainly  be  able  to.  

  Advocates  for  the  CSI  Effect  note  the  media’s  fabrication  or  exaggeration  of  

forensic  experiments  as  a  contributor  of  jurors’  inflated  expectations  of  the  

prosecution.  While  many  of  the  procedures  seen  on  TV  seem  plausible,  the  reality  is  

that  these  tests  are  based  on  theories  that  are  not  recognized  by  the  scientific  

community.  For  example,  in  the  case  of  bullet  lead  comparisons,  the  analysis  and  

conclusions  drawn  from  testing  are  based  on  the  premise  that  “batches  of  lead  used  

to  make  bullets  contain  unique  combinations  of  seven  trace  elements…  if  two  bullets  

contain  the  same  ratios  of  these  elements,  an  expert  may  infer  that  they  originated  

                                                                                                               87 Tyler, "Viewing CSI and the Threshold of Guilt: Managing Truth and Justice in Reality and Fiction." 88 Jonathan Jones, “Forensic Tools: What’s Reliable and What’s Not-so-Scientific,” Frontline: Criminal Justice, Apr. 17, 2012, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/criminal-justice/real-csi/forensic-tools-whats-reliable-and-whats-not-so-scientific/.

  35  

from  the  same  source.”89  However,  during  an  investigation  initiated  by  the  National  

Academy  of  Sciences,  it  was  revealed  that  it  is  in  fact  possible  for  two  bullets  from  

the  same  batch  to  have  a  different  chemical  composition,  and  conversely  for  two  

bullets  from  different  groups  to  be  identical.90  Additionally,  on  the  television  show  

Bones,  the  “Angelator”91  is  able  to  create  a  three  dimensional  hologram  rendering  of  

any  scenario  the  Jeffersonian/FBI  team  can  imagine  to  explain  how  a  murder  

occurred.  As  of  now,  although  this  technology  exists,  it  is  not  used  in  criminal  

investigations.92  The  final  unrealistic  tools  in  the  TV  forensic  laboratory’s  arsenal  

worth  mentioning  are  the  “omniscient  databases  that  can  search  any  kind  of  product  

ranging  from  tires,  cars,  and  tools  to  makeup,  coffee  and  soil  samples.”93  Although  

there  are  several  databases  that  do  exist  in  real  life  such  as  CODIS,  IBIN,  and  AFIS,  

the  information  contained  within  these  computer  programs  is  limited  to  whatever  is  

entered  by  police  officers  and  forensic  scientists.  Moreover,  all  of  the  data  must  

possess  certain  properties  so  that  there  are  points  of  comparison  between  the  

sample  and  all  other  entries  within  the  database.  If  the  evidence  lacks  these  

homogenizing  characteristics,  it  is  excluded  from  the  database.  This  means  that  only  

a  fraction  of  the  information  uncovered  during  criminal  investigations  is  actually  

viable.  In  other  words,  these  seemingly  encyclopedic  databases  seen  on  TV  are  

hardly  all  encompassing  in  reality.    This  by  no  means  should  diminish  their  

contributions  to  criminal  investigations—as  previously  mentioned,  the  databases                                                                                                                  89 Moriarty and Saks, “Forensic Science: Grand Goals, Tragic Flaws, and Judicial Gatekeeping,” 22. 90 Ibid. 91 “Angelator,” Bones Wiki, http://bones.wikia.com/wiki/Angelator (accessed Mar. 29, 2013). 92 Hart Hanson, “Bones: More of Your Burning Questions Answered,” Interview by David A. Keeps, TV Guide (2006), http://www.tvguide.com/news/Bones-Burning-Questions-35748.aspx (accessed Mar. 29, 2013). 93 Durnal, "Crime Scene Investigation (as Seen on TV)," 4.

  36  

that  do  exist  have  helped  solve  hundreds  of  thousands  of  criminal  investigations.  

However,  this  hypothesis  of  the  CSI  Effect  assumes  that  viewers  of  these  television  

shows  and  potential  jurors  believe  that  all  of  the  other  databases  exist.  It  then  

follows  that  since  the  databases  exist,  they  should  have  been  used  to  further  solidify  

the  prosecution’s  case,  and  if  they  are  not  used,  it  is  attributed  to  evidence  of  the  

defendant’s  innocence.            

  A  final  argument  made  by  proponents  of  this  side  of  the  CSI  Effect  hypothesis  

relates  to  the  statistical  certainty  of  the  evidence  used  during  an  investigation.  In  

order  for  a  forensic  scientist  to  unequivocally  affirm  that  a  piece  of  evidence  belongs  

to  a  particular  defendant,  he  must  prove  that  “a)  two  sets  of  features  are  

indistinguishably  alike  and  b)  those  similarities  are  shared  by  no  other  person  or  

object.”94  However,  with  the  exception  of  DNA  evidence,  no  forensic  test  “possesses  

a  database  that  permits  the  calculation  of  a  probability  of  a  coincidental  match.”95  

Because  very  few  standards  exist  that  govern  the  statistical  certainty  required  for  

forensic  evidence  to  be  presented  in  court,  many  jurors  are  unimpressed  with  the  

prosecution’s  presentation  of  forensic  evidence.  Crime  labs  in  the  United  States  do  

not  have  to  be  accredited  before  they  are  allowed  to  process  evidence.96  There  is  

also  no  minimum  number  of  commonalities  that  two  samples  must  share  before  a  

forensic  expert  can  claim  to  have  made  a  positive  identification.  Although  the  

scientific  community  usually  prefers  anywhere  from  eight  to  sixteen  points  of  

similarity  before  they  are  persuaded  that  two  samples  came  from  the  same  origin,  it  

                                                                                                               94 Moriarty and Saks, “Forensic Science: Grand Goals, Tragic Flaws, and Judicial Gatekeeping,” 18. 95 Ibid. 96 Ibid.

  37  

is  possible  for  a  fingerprint  analyst  to  testify  under  oath  that  an  identification  has  

been  made  using  only  six  or  even  five  points  of  comparison.97  Therefore,  when  

jurors  who  are  constantly  spoiled  by  99.8%  match  probabilities  on  TV  encounter  

anything  less  than  near-­‐certainty,  they  misinterpret  the  evidence  as  grounds  for  

reasonable  doubt.    

  According  to  proponents  of  this  side  of  the  CSI  Effect  theory,  when  an  

individual  serves  as  a  juror  for  a  criminal  trial,  these  realities  of  forensic  science  

become  evident,  especially  if  the  person  frequently  watches  the  aforementioned  

legal  and  forensic  television  shows.  As  a  result,  members  of  the  jury  are  left  

unsatisfied  and  unconvinced  regarding  the  guilt  of  a  defendant.  Because  the  United  

States  legal  system  requires  a  defendant  to  be  found  guilty  beyond  a  reasonable  

doubt  in  order  to  be  convicted,  these  uncertainties  lead  jurors  to  hypothesize  that  

there  is  insufficient  evidence  to  indisputably  connect  the  defendant  to  the  crime,  

thus  obligating  them  to  acquit  the  defendant.  As  Dr.  Kimberlianne  Podlas  writes,  this  

manifestation  of  the  CSI  Effect  is  inducing  a  trend  in  which  a  jury  unintentionally  

“increases  the  constitutional  burden  from  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt  to  beyond  any  

and  all  doubt.”98    

B.  Hypothesis  2:  Increase  on  the  Defense’s  Burden      

  This  theory  of  the  CSI  Effect  stipulates  that  defense  attorneys  are  having  an  

increasingly  difficult  time  getting  their  clients  acquitted  because  of  the  impact  

television  shows  like  Bones,  NCIS  and  SVU  make  on  jurors.  It  is  important  to  note  

                                                                                                               97 Saferstein, Criminalistics. 98 Podlas, "The CSE Effect: Exposing the Media Myth," 436 (citing Michael Mello).

  38  

that  this  position  is  not  as  well  researched  as  its  counterpart;  however,  compelling  

arguments  have  been  made  in  favor  of  this  phenomenon  that  cannot  be  overlooked.    

  The  most  persuasive  argument  made  by  this  definition  of  the  CSI  Effect  is  

that  in  reality,  scientific  evidence  presented  in  trials  is  relatively  unreliable  and  

subsequently  fails  to  meet  jurors’  expectations.  As  previously  mentioned,  very  few  

standards  exist  that  govern  the  processes  involved  in  forensic  identification.  Crime  

labs  are  not  necessarily  accredited,  there  is  no  minimum  number  of  similarities  that  

must  be  found  before  a  positive  identification  can  be  claimed,  and  human  error  is  

unfortunately  frequent  during  the  collection  and  testing  of  forensic  evidence.99  The  

absence  of  oversights  has  the  potential  to  yield  incorrect  conclusions,  which  are  

then  presented  to  juries.  One  of  the  most  common  arguments  presented  in  support  

of  this  CSI  Effect  definition  is  the  frequency  of  DNA  exonerations.  On  television,  

evidence  is  generally  equated  with  guilt,  and  the  results  yielded  from  testing  in  the  

lab  are  not  tainted  with  human  error  or  unscientific  guesswork.  The  probability  that  

a  match  has  been  made  is  virtually  100%  and  the  characters  conduct  their  

investigations  under  the  assumption  that  “DNA  doesn’t  lie.”  In  reality,  the  mere  

existence  of  The  Innocence  Project  serves  as  a  reminder  that  perfection  is  not  

always  achieved.  Unfortunately,  DNA  does  sometimes  lie  (in  that  it  can  be  

inconclusive  or  otherwise  tainted),  and  jurors  who  are  accustomed  to  the  certainty  

on  television  are  hesitant  and  arguably  unwilling  to  abandon  their  idealized  beliefs  

in  DNA.    

                                                                                                               99 Ibid.

  39  

  Moreover,  the  notion  of  expert  testimony  as  unreliable  is  augmented  by  

instances  in  which  “forensic  technicians,  crime  scene  investigators,  and  crime-­‐

reconstruction  experts  have  lied  under  oath,  faked  their  credentials,  fabricated  

evidence…  [and  even]  forged  test  results.”100  For  various  reasons,  many  real  life  

forensic  scientists  seem  to  have  great  difficulty  sticking  to  the  facts.  In  fact,  

numerous  cases  of  impropriety  have  been  cited  by  colleagues  of  these  data  

manipulators,101  which  unfortunately  further  damages  the  already  fragile  

reputation  of  forensics.    This  side  of  the  CSI  Effect  hypothesizes  that  because  the  

evidence  seen  on  television  is  always  accurate  and  trustworthy,  jurors  will  assume  

that  the  evidence  with  which  they  are  presented  is  equally  as  reliable  and  thus  

indicative  of  a  defendant’s  guilt.    

  Advocates  of  this  proposed  theory  of  the  CSI  Effect  complain  that  many  of  the  

tests  conducted  on  evidence  are  not  grounded  in  the  scientific  method  and  therefore  

cannot  produce  reliable  results.  It  has  already  been  mentioned  that  skeptics  have  

challenged  the  veracity  of  fingerprint  and  ballistic  identification;  however,  the  

integrity  of  several  other  forensic  tests  are  also  being  questioned,  including  “  dog  

sniff  evidence,  hair  analysis,  bite-­‐mark  analysis,  earprints…  and  handwriting  

identification.”102  Subsequently,  this  is  causing  them  to  question  how  exactly  the  

courts  are  defining  expert  testimony.  They  argue  that  too  many  controversial  

conclusions  are  disguising  themselves  as  reliable  and  obfuscating  the  jury’s  

demarcation  line  between  fact  and  fiction.    

                                                                                                               100 Ibid., 441. 101 Kit R. Roane, “The CSI Effect.” 102 Podlas, "The CSE Effect: Exposing the Media Myth," 439-440.

  40  

V.  REFUTATION  OF  THE  CSI  EFFECT    

A.  Counter  Arguments    

           1.  Refutation  of  Hypothesis  1:  An  Increase  in  the  Burden  on  the  Prosecution    

  US  Attorney’s  Statistical  Report  &  Current  Sociological  Trends:  Every  

year,  the  United  States  Department  of  Justice  releases  a  report  detailing  a  number  of  

different  statistical  breakdowns  that  pertain  to  the  criminal,  civil  and  appellate  

cases  handled  by  US  Attorneys  during  the  previous  fiscal  year.  In  the  preface  that  

accompanied  the  publication  for  the  2010  report,  director  H.  Marshall  Jarret  

explains,    

“The  United  States  Attorneys,  under  the  direction  of  the  Attorney  General,  are  responsible  for  

investigating  and  prosecuting  those  who  violate  our  nation’s  laws,  for  asserting  and  defending  

the  interests  of  the  United  States,  its  departments,  and  agencies  through  the  conduct  of  civil  

litigation,  and  for  representing  the  United  States  in  its  appellate  courts.  “  

The  data  contained  therein  refutes  the  CSI  Effect  proponents’  claim  that  the  

prosecution  is  having  a  harder  time  convicting  defendants.    According  to  the  

reports,  since  the  start  of  the  new  millennium,  the  conviction  rate  for  criminal  cases  

prosecuted  has  been  over  90%.  Additionally,  the  number  of  criminal  defendants  has  

increased  by  more  than  100  percent  over  the  past  40  years.    The  pertinent  

information  can  be  found  in  Tables  3,4  and  5  as  well  as  in  Figure  11.  These  real  

world  variables  suggest  that  the  prediction  made  by  the  first  theory  of  the  CSI  Effect  

are  not  transpiring.    

  It  is  important  to  note,  however,  that  these  statistics  do  not  break  down  the  

number  of  convictions  in  which  forensic  evidence  was  available  (although  I  highly  

recommend  that  the  2014  Fiscal  Year  report  includes  this  data).  Furthermore,  as  

  41  

Director  Jarrett  cautions  in  his  introduction,  “these  charts  and  tables…  cannot  and  

do  not  reflect  the  quality  and  complexity  of  the  criminal  prosecutions…  conducted  

by  the  offices,  and  the  statistics  fail  to  present  a  realistic  picture  of  the  time,  effort  

and  skill  required  to  prosecute  and  litigate  the  cases.”103  Nevertheless,  based  on  this  

data,  it  is  reasonable  to  conclude  that  bias  against  the  prosecution  as  set  forth  in  the  

first  theory  of  the  CSI  Effect  does  not  accurately  reflect  our  current  sociological  

trend  of  mass  incarceration.  In  other  words,  the  prosecution  seems  to  be  doing  just  

fine  in  getting  convictions.    

  Mass  Incarceration:  Over  the  past  40  years,  the  United  States’  rate  of  

imprisonment  has  increased  drastically,  causing  overcrowding  in  federal  and  state  

prisons.  California,  which  has  the  most  offensive  case  of  prison  overcrowding,  must  

build  at  least  one  new  prison  a  year,  every  year  in  order  to  remain  at  double  

capacity.  According  to  Eric  Schlosser,  a  scholar  who  has  thoroughly  researched  the  

incarceration  patterns  of  the  United  States,  “the  state  holds  more  inmates  in  its  jails  

and  prisons  than  do  France,  Great  Britain,  Germany,  Japan,  Singapore,  and  the  

Netherlands  combined.”104  However,  the  conditions  in  California  merely  provide  an  

exaggerated  example  of  our  country’s  inclination  to  imprison  deviant  individuals.  

Prior  to  the  1970’s,  before  the  start  of  an  era  laden  with  crime,  the  nation’s  

incarceration  rate  was  approximately  110  prison  inmates  for  every  100,000105  

people.  In  2007,  the  US  imprisonment  rates  peaked  at  506  inmates  per  100,000  

                                                                                                               103 U.S. Department of Justice, US Attorneys’ Annual Statistical Report Fiscal Year 2010, by H. Marshall Jarrett, (Washington DC: Office of the United States Attorneys, 2010). 104 Eric Schlosser, “The Prison Industrial Complex,” The Atlantic Monthly, (December 1998), 52-77, 52. 105 Steven Raphael, and Michael A. Stoll, “Why Are So Many Americans in Prison?,” University of California, Berkeley Law, 2008, http://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/Steven(2).pdf.

  42  

residents,  with  the  frequency  of  male  incarceration  over  14  times  that  of  female  

(932  per  100,000  male  U.S.  residents  compared  to  65  per  100,000  female  

residents).106    

  These  trends  reflect  a  seemingly  pervasive  cultural  mindset  in  which  

essentially  all  deviance  is  punishable  by  imprisonment.  As  Franklin  E.  Zimring  

comments,  “no  matter  what  the  question  has  been  in  American  criminal  justice  over  

the  last  generation,  prison  has  been  the  answer.”107  Crimes  for  which  it  would  

reasonable  to  perform  community  service,  serve  probation,  or  receive  medical  

treatment  are  instead  punished  with  jail  sentences.  In  alignment  with  this  mindset,  

both  federal  and  state  governments  have  invested  billions  of  dollars  into  the  

construction  of  new  prisons  to  accommodate  the  felon  population  and  relieve  

prison  overcrowding.  

  The  willingness  of  the  US  Judicial  branch  to  incarcerate  so  many  individuals  

is  a  cultural  mindset  that  deserves  further  investigation.  It  has  given  rise  to  racially  

motivated  patterns  of  imprisonment,  an  ineffective  system  that  was  initially  

established  to  deter  criminal  behavior,  and  a  multi-­‐billion  dollar  capitalist  market  

that  thrives  on  the  misfortune  of  “the  poor,  homeless,  mentally  ill,  drug  dealers,  drug  

addicts,  alcoholics  and  other  nonviolent  deviants.”108  However,  all  of  this  is  not  

within  the  scope  of  this  paper.  What  is  pertinent  is  that  the  confluence  of  all  of  these  

variables  reinforces  the  argument  that  clearly  prosecutors  are  not  having  difficulties  

convicting.    

                                                                                                               106 U.S. Department of Justice: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prison Population Declined in 26 States During 2011, December 2012, http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/p11pr.cfm. 107 Schlosser, “The Prison Industrial Complex,” 52. 108 Schlosser, “The Prison Industrial Complex,” 54.

  43  

           2.  Refutation  of  Hypothesis  2:  An  Increase  in  the  Burden  on  the  Defense  

  A  primary  problem  with  the  arguments  made  by  proponents  of  this  

definition  is  that  they  entirely  are  based  upon  incidents  in  which  the  forensic  expert  

testimony  with  which  jurors  were  presented  was  false.  This  has  in  turn  inflated  the  

belief  that  jurors  are  blinded  by  the  infallibility  of  science  as  seen  on  television  and  

may  lead  them  to  accept  the  veracity  of  an  expert  witness,  regardless  of  the  truth  of  

the  testimony.  I  however,  argue  that  these  occurrences  do  not  provide  any  evidence  

whatsoever  to  confirm  the  existence  of  the  CSI  Effect’s  second  hypothesis.  Instead,  I  

argue  that  this  platform  is  more  of  a  commentary  and  cautionary  warning  for  the  

courts  to  be  more  selective  in  their  admission  of  expert  testimony.  Presently,  expert  

witnesses  and  their  testimony  must  undergo  a  series  of  vetting  procedures  that  

were  established  both  through  court  precedence  and  congressional  legislature.  

Subsequently,  because  of  the  framework  established  by  these  documents,  I  counter  

that  jurors  have  the  right  to  enter  a  courtroom  with  the  expectation  that  all  of  the  

forensics  with  which  they  are  being  presented  have  been  properly  verified  and  

corroborated  by  both  legal  teams  as  well  as  the  presiding  judge.    

  Court  Precedence:  Court  precedents  such  as  Frye  v.  United  States109,  Daubert  

v.  Merrell  Dow  Pharmaceuticals110  and  numerous  others  were  established  to  

preserve  the  integrity  of  the  phrase  expert  forensic  testimony.    

  Argued  and  decided  in  1923,  Frye  v.  United  States  was  the  first  legal  decision  

that  established  a  list  of  qualities  and  criteria  that  must  be  met  by  an  expert’s  

testimony  if  it  is  to  be  admissible  in  court.  This  case  was  responsible  for  developing  

                                                                                                               109 Frye v. United States, 54 App. D.C. 46, 47, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (1923).  110 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 US 579 (1993).

  44  

a  preliminary  set  of  regulatory  parameters  that  would  allow  the  courts  to  more  

easily  distinguish  between  information  being  presented  as  expert  scientific  

testimony  or  simply  the  ipse  dixit  of  the  witness.  In  the  past,  if  someone  was  

considered  to  be  an  expert  in  his  field  and  his  testimony  was  deemed  relevant  to  the  

criminal  proceedings,  then  the  evidence  was  admissible.  However,  lawyers  and  their  

defendants  were  increasingly  skeptical  of  the  validity  possessed  by  the  information  

presented  as  scientific  fact  by  the  witness.  They  argued  that  court’s  current  

admissibility  standards  “never  asked  whether  a  body  of  asserted  knowledge  existed,  

and  could  be  validated,  separate  from  the  qualified  expert  who  possessed  it.”111  

Ultimately,  Frye  v.  United  States  affirmed  that  expert  testimony  is  admissible  in  a  

court  of  law  if  “the  thing  from  which  the  deduction  is  made…[has]  gained  general  

acceptance  in  the  particular  field  in  which  it  belongs.”112  Moreover,  the  court  

proposed  that  “the  opinions  of  experts  or  skilled  witnesses  are  admissible  in  

evidence  in  those  cases  in  which  the  matter  of  inquiry  is  such  that  inexperienced  

persons  are  unlikely  to  prove  capable  of  forming  a  correct  judgment  upon  it,  for  the  

reason  that  the  subject  matter  requires  a  previous  habit  or  experience  or  study  in  it,  

in  order  to  acquire  knowledge  of  it.”113  In  short,  for  all  cases  in  which  expert  

testimony  is  deemed  necessary,  its  admissibility  is  determined  based  on  its  ability  to  

meet  the  following  criteria:  a)  the  testimony  being  presented  is  the  result  of  an  

experiment  whose  protocols  are  well  accepted  within  the  relevant  scientific  

community,  and  b)  the  testimony  must  be  specialized  enough  so  that  the  average  

                                                                                                               111 David L. Faigman et al., “Admissibility of Scientific Evidence,” in Modern Scientific Evidence: The Law and Science of Expert Testimony, West Group, 2006, 2-124, 7. 112 Frye v. United States., 293 F. 1013, 1014, 34 A.L.R. 145 (App. D.C. 1923). 113 Ibid.

  45  

individual  does  not  possess  the  knowledge  and  expertise  required  to  understand  

and  arrive  at  these  conclusions  on  his  or  her  own.    

  Although  Frye  v.  United  States  established  several  necessary  demarcation  

criteria  to  screen  expert  testimony,  there  were  several  shortcomings  that  the  

decision  failed  to  address.  One  of  the  major  problems  was  that  the  admissibility  

standard,  which  was  the  primary  procedural  criteria,  yielded  extremely  variable  

results.  It  was  discovered  that  the  degree  of  acceptance  and  confirmation  of  a  

particular  test  was  dependant  on  the  scope  of  the  community  being  asked.  In  other  

words,  the  courts  could  ultimately  manipulate  the  responses  they  receive  by  either  

narrowing  or  expanding  the  group  of  scientists  that  are  defined  as  the  ‘pertinent  

field.’”114  This  stems  from  the  fact  that  different  scientific  communities  have  

different  thresholds  with  respect  to  what  constitutes  an  accepted  experiment  

protocol.  As  a  result,  the  courts  worked  to  create  a  more  thorough  and  

comprehensive  list  of  rules  that  would  govern  the  admissibility  of  forensic  evidence.    

  The  landmark  case  that  is  the  quintessential  guideline  for  the  admissibility  of  

expert  testimony  is  the  1993  case  Daubert  v.  Merrell  Dow  Pharmaceuticals  Inc..  This  

case  is  the  most  commonly  associated  with  establishing  four  standards  for  

determining  whether  or  not  expert  testimony  is  admissible:  1)  testability  or  

falsifiability;  2)  error  rate;  3)  peer  review  or  publication;  and  4)  general  acceptance.  

  Testability  refers  to  whether  the  information  being  presented  by  an  expert  

witness  to  the  court  was  obtained  by  experimental  protocol  whose  accuracy  and  

veracity  are  verifiable  or  refutable.  According  to  David  Faigman  and  his  colleagues,  

                                                                                                               114 Faigman et al., “Admissibility of Scientific Evidence,”12.

  46  

prior  to  the  articulation  of  this  Daubert  standard,  “courts  generally  appear[ed]  to  

treat  testability  as  a  pre-­‐requisite  rather  than  just  another  factor.”115    

  The  next  criterion,  error  rate,  simply  indicates  the  accuracy  of  the  results  

produced  from  the  experiment.  An  important  question  is  what  types  of  mistakes  are  

more  prevalent  for  this  method  of  testing:  false  positives  or  false  negatives.  Our  

legal  system  is  designed  to  give  the  benefit  of  doubt  to  the  defendant.  This  is  why  he  

or  she  is  deemed  innocent  until  proven  guilty  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt  as  

opposed  to  guilty  until  proven  innocent.  False  positives  are  more  consistent  with  

the  guilty  until  proven  innocent  mindset.  This  is  why  areas  of  research  in  which  

false  positives  are  more  prevalent  must  usually  undergo  more  scrutiny  than  those  in  

which  false  negatives  are  more  frequent.116

Peer  Review  or  publication,  which  is  the  third  criterion  of  the  Daubert  

Standards,  is  an  improvement  upon  the  acceptability  principle  emphasized  by  Frye.  

If  a  scientific  theory  is  published  or  has  undergone  a  peer  review,  it  is  more  likely  to  

have  survived  scrutiny,  criticism  and  revision  to  ameliorate  its  predictive  power.  As  

noted  in  the  Daubert  opinion,  “the  fact  of  publication  (or  lack  thereof)  in  a  peer-­‐

reviewed  journal  thus  will  be  a  relevant,  though  not  dispositive,  consideration  in  

assessing  the  scientific  validity  of  a  particular  technique  or  methodology  on  which  

an  opinion  is  premised.”117  In  other  words,  a  literal  interpretation  of  this  standard  is  

not  necessary  for  the  inclusion  or  rejection  of  expert  testimony;  it  is  simply  a  

                                                                                                               115 Faigman et al., “Admissibility of Scientific Evidence,” 49-50. 116 Ibid., 60. 117 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 594, 113 S. Ct. 2786, 125 L. Ed. 2d 469, 27 U.S.P. Q.2d 1200, Prod. Liab. Rep. (CCH) P 13494, 37 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1, 23 Envtl. L. Rep. 20979 (1993).

  47  

reiteration  of  the  importance  that  the  tests  conducted  be  grounded  in  the  scientific  

method  and  able  to  draw  logical,  appropriate  conclusions.    

  Lastly,  general  acceptance  is  the  category  governing  expert  testimony  

admissibility  that  was  preserved  from  the  Frye  v.  United  States  ruling  70  years  

earlier.    

  Perhaps  one  of  the  most  important  (and  problematic)  standards  that  Daubert  

implemented  in  the  determination  of  admissibility  is  the  transference  of  

responsibility  from  the  scientific  community  to  district  court  judges.  Under  Frye,  

judges  were  able  to  delegate  their  role  of  testimony  gatekeeping  to  experts  in  the  

scientific  field  who  were  responsible  for  determining  the  credibility  of  expert  

testimony  and  the  general  acceptance  of  the  procedures  used  by  the  witness.  

However,  Daubert  appointed  judges  as  the  individuals  responsible  for  making  the  

final  decision  of  evidence  admissibility.  This  posed  a  problem  because  “judges  and  

lawyers,  long  insulated  from  the  scientific  revolution,  are  now  obligated  to  become  

familiar  with  the  methods  and  culture  of  science.”118  Critics’  faith  in  the  ability  of  

judges  to  knowledgeably  weigh  the  merits  of  proffered  testimony  was  further  

diminished  upon  realizing  that  the  Ninth  Circuit  Court  of  Appeals  stressed  in  its  

opinion  that  these  four  considerations  are  in  no  way  the  only  means  of  determining  

admissibility;  “no  single  list  of  factors…can  capture  the  sundry  considerations  that  

go  into  determining  the  validity  of  research  results.”119  Nonetheless,  it  was  

determined  that  the  judges  have  the  knowledge,  intelligence  and  common  sense  to  

evaluate  all  of  the  facts  and  determine  what  is  or  is  not  relevant  and  appropriate  

                                                                                                               118 Faigman et al., “Admissibility of Scientific Evidence,” 21. 119 Ibid., 44.

  48  

evidence  to  present  to  a  jury.    

Frye  and  Daubert  are  by  no  means  the  only  precedents  that  delineate  the  

qualifications  necessary  for  presenting  expert  testimony.  Nor  is  the  admissibility  of  

expert  testimony  the  only  issue  dispositively  controlling  this  vast  and  complex  topic.  

However,  they  are  sufficient  to  prove  the  point  that  numerous  safeguards  are  in  

place,  which  when  implemented  properly,  should  prevent  unqualified  or  charlatan  

witnesses  from  presenting  falsified  information  to  a  jury.  The  evidence  that  is  

allegedly  confirming  this  second  hypothesis  of  the  CSI  Effect  is  not  the  result  of  

television’s  influence  on  jurors.  Rather,  it  is  unqualified  individuals  calling  

themselves  forensic  scientists  who  are  able  to  manipulate  the  system.  While  it  is  

true  that  the  media  does  have  a  profound  influence  on  its  viewers,  the  arguments  

proposed  by  advocates  of  this  second  hypothesis  of  the  CSI  Effect  are  not  the  result  

of  the  TV,  but  rather  an  ineffective  enforcement  of  the  court’s  opinions  and  

decisions  that  were  installed  through  the  precedents  just  discussed.    

B.  Paradoxical  Construct  of  The  CSI  Effect    

  1.  Falsifiability  

  Karl  Robert  Popper  is  one  of  the  most  well  known  philosophers  of  science  

who  spent  the  majority  of  his  career  trying  to  develop  the  demarcation  line  between  

science  and  pseudoscience.  It  is  a  well-­‐accepted  fact  that  one  of  the  hallmarks  of  

scientific  research  is  the  empiricism  with  which  it  is  performed.  The  experimental  

design  of  science  is  precise  and  constructed  in  a  way  that  duplication  of  the  test  is  

expected  to  confirm  the  results  previously  obtained.  However,  Popper  added  an  

additional  qualification  in  order  to  differentiate  between  science  and  pseudoscience:  

  49  

science  must  have  the  potential  to  be  refuted.  As  he  wrote  in  his  1957  paper  entitled  

Conjectures  and  Refutations,  “the  criterion  of  the  scientific  status  of  a  theory  is  its  

falsifiability,  or  refutability,  or  testability.”  This  characteristic,  he  proposed,  is  that  

science  is  not  always  confirmed;  a  theory  does  not  have  infinite  explanatory  power,  

and  cannot  “explain  practically  everything  that  happened  within  the  fields  to  which  

[it]  refers.”120  Despite  the  fact  that  numerous  philosophers  have  challenged  the  

veracity  of  Popper’s  definition,  it  still  remains  a  popular  and  frequently  used  

demarcation  line  in  society  today—especially  in  court  opinions.  Based  on  this,  I  

propose  that  the  CSI  Effect  is  not  a  scientific  theory  and  therefore  should  not  be  the  

tenet  guiding  the  research  of  people  interested  in  ascertaining  how  the  media  

influences  society.          

  As  previously  stated,  the  CSI  Effect  postulates  that  our  society  is  seeing  either  

a)  an  increase  in  acquittals  because  the  prosecution  is  failing  to  abolish  the  forensic  

preconceptions  that  jurors  possess  after  watching  TV  crime  shows,  or  b)  an  increase  

in  convictions  because  the  defense  is  unable  to  refute  the  scientific  evidence  the  

prosecution  presents  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt.  This  construct  of  the  theory  is  

unfalsifiable;  there  is  no  way  to  refute  it.  A  defendant’s  fate  is  usually  decided  in  one  

of  two  ways:  a  guilty  verdict  or  an  acquittal.  Although  there  is  a  third  option,  which  

would  be  the  incidence  of  a  mistrial,  which  is  the  result  of  misconduct  or  the  jury’s  

inability  to  reach  a  verdict,  this  alternative  is  overlooked  with  respect  to  how  

television  shows  encourage  this  outcome.  As  a  result,  for  the  purpose  of  this  paper,  

it  is  a  negligible  result.  When  evaluating  the  legal  landscape  of  our  country,  

                                                                                                               120 Karl Robert Popper, “Conjectures and Refutations,” in Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues, ed. Martin Curd et al. (New York: W.W. Norton, 2013), Print, 5.

  50  

researchers  will  either  see  an  increase  in  the  number  of  convictions  or  an  increase  

in  the  number  of  acquittals.  Likewise,  the  construct  of  the  CSI  Effect  allows  it  to  

predict  that  the  increased  popularity  of  crime  dramas  will  either  result  in  more  

acquittals  or  more  convictions.  Subsequently,  any  reasonable  scientific  experiment  

done  to  determine  whether  or  not  the  CSI  Effect  exists  will  always  lead  to  the  

conclusion  that  it  does  exist.  

VI.  CONSTRUCTING  A  NEW  “CSI  EFFECT”      

  Watching  television  shows  undeniably  impacts  viewers’  perceptions  of  

reality.  We  are  the  products  of  what  we  consume  and  to  what  we  expose  ourselves.  

However,  this  process  of  knowledge  absorption  is  nothing  new.  Throughout  the  

history  of  man,  individuals  have  gone  to  great  lengths  to  disseminate  and  learn  

about  the  world  in  which  they  live.  Today,  this  process  of  education  has  evolved  as  a  

result  of  the  technological  revolution  our  society  has  undergone.  Now  we  are  able  to  

learn  using  a  number  of  medias.  Students  are  continually  exposed  to  knowledge  

through  their  highly  structured  educational  curriculum;  pop  culture  including  

books,  movies,  television  shows  and  podcasts,  which  incorporate  science  both  

overtly  and  covertly  in  their  content,  as  well  as  accessibility  to  the  internet  and  sites  

such  as  Wikipedia,  provide  them  with  the  answers  to  virtually  everything.  Whoever  

desires  knowledge  is  able  to  obtain  it,  and  subsequently  the  public  is  able  to  see  real  

outcomes  from  the  scientific  community.  The  premise  behind  the  CSI  Effect  is  that  

many  of  these  technologies  are  disseminating  knowledge  that  is  no  longer  accurate,  

but  rather  constructed  for  the  purpose  of  entertainment.    

  51  

  It  is  an  intriguing  thought  that  CSI  and  these  crime  scene  television  shows  

have  this  ability  to  influence  jury  members.  The  dichotomy  between  the  fictitious  

and  realistic  applications  of  the  three  forensic  sciences  mentioned  in  this  paper,  

shows  the  basis  upon  which  the  premise  of  the  CSI  Effect  exists.  I  propose  that  this  

theory’s  flaw  is  not  with  the  sociological  phenomenon  it  is  trying  to  explain,  but  

rather  the  way  in  which  it  is  attempting  to  explain  it.  As  a  result,  I  propose  that  legal  

scholars  and  other  individuals  pursuing  jurors’  exaggerated  forensic  science  

expectations  should  abandon  the  paradoxical  CSI  Effect  and  instead  develop  a  new  

theory  that  better  ascertains  how  the  media  is  influencing  juries.    By  constructing  a  

more  appropriate  research  paradigm,  scholars  and  interested  parties  will  be  able  to  

more  accurately  observe  how  television  exaggerations  of  forensic  science  are  

manifesting  in  courtrooms  through  jurors  pre-­‐established  expectations.    

  52  

 Additional  Sources:  

 1. Michael  J.  Saks  and  Jonathan  J.  Koehler,  “The  Coming  Paradigm  Shift  in  Forensic  

Identification  Science,”  Science  309,  no.  5736  (Aug.  2005):  892-­‐895,  doi:  10.1126/science.1111565.      

2. Nalini  K.  Ratha,  and  Ruud  Bolle.  Automatic  Fingerprint  Recognition  Systems.  New  York:  Springer,  2004.  Print.  

3. Terri  Sundquist,  "The  Reality  of  Crime  Scene  Investigation.  Part  1:  Common  Myths,"  Promega  Connections.  May  24,  2010,  Web,  (accessed  Apr.  14,  2013).  http://promega.wordpress.com/2010/05/24/the-­‐reality-­‐of-­‐crime-­‐scene-­‐investigation-­‐part-­‐i-­‐common-­‐myths/.      

4. U.S. Department of Justice, US Attorneys’ Annual Statistical Report Fiscal Year 1960, ed. Robert F. Bain et al., (Washington DC: Office of the United States Attorneys, 1960).  

5. U.S. Department of Justice, US Attorneys’ Annual Statistical Report Fiscal Year 1985, ed. Office of Management Information Systems and Support Staff of the Executive Office for U.S Attorneys (Washington DC: Office of the United States Attorneys, 1985).

6. U.S. Department of Justice, US Attorneys’ Annual Statistical Report Fiscal Year 2008, ed. Kenneth E. Melson, (Washington DC: Office of the United States Attorneys, 2008).

7. Vincent  J.M.  Di  Maio,  Gunshot  Wounds:  Practical  Aspects  of  Firearms,  Ballistics,  and  Forensic  Techniques.  2nd  ed.  Boca  Raton:  CRC,  1999.  Print.