|
|
|
|
|
About Us | Support Us | Contact Us |
|
||
 |
|
 |
||
 |
 |
 |
|
|
Entertainment News
December 16, 2002 Potential jurors these days are being asked a question that is becoming something of a national refrain: "Do you watch the television show 'CSI'?" As "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation," the top-rated CBS show about a technologically supercharged team of crime-scene investigators, spins off this season into another wildly popular franchise, "CSI: Miami," district attorneys increasingly worry that the shows taint the jury pool with impossibly high expectations of how easily and conclusively criminal cases can be solved using DNA analysis and other forensic science. Left unchallenged, such expectations could undermine their cases, they say, and - in the worst-case scenario - translate into losses in the courtroom. So far, no one has blamed "CSI" for a defeat. But to neutralize "CSI's" pervasive influence - together, the shows grab nearly 50 million viewers each week - prosecutors nationally are pointedly questioning would-be jurors to make certain they can distinguish between real-life forensics that take time, luck and money and make-believe, where cases are irrefutably solved in 40 minutes. The issue even created a little buzz at last month's national prosecutors meeting in Austin, Texas. "All we hear about is 'CSI,' " said Christine Mascal, a deputy district attorney for Multnomah County, Ore., who initiated discussion of the show last month during a murder trial where she planned to present little physical evidence. "People are fascinated with that show. So if you have physical evidence, (the show) may work to your advantage." If not, it could mean trouble. "They may expect it," Mascal said. "('CSI' fans) think everything's possible." Almost 50 years ago, "Perry Mason," about a defense lawyer who never failed to get a midtrial confession from the real killer, was the first TV show to give prosecutors fits. In the 1970s and early 1980s, it was crime-fighting coroner "Quincy." But "CSI," boasting DNA-age techniques that look authentic but sometimes miss the mark, appears to blur the line between make-believe and real life to a degree never seen before. An enviable array of real and not-so-real technologies and gadgets are at the disposal of the carefully coifed "CSI" gumshoes as they investigate slain strippers, kidnapped wives of millionaires and maggot-covered bodies found in the Las Vegas desert: DNA analysis; mass spectrometers to test chemical compositions; Luminol, a chemical test causing invisible traces of blood to emit a telegenic blue glow. There are no real-life budget constraints: Every case gets the full-court press of available tests. There are no time lags for DNA results. Almost no courtrooms or juries either. Faced with the weight of trace evidence, suspects usually confess. Case closed. In one particularly improbable plot line, for example, the intrepid "CSI" investigators are able to find the man who slaughtered a blacklisted sex worker in a snuff video by proving through DNA analysis that her final spurts of blood infected him with HIV - something local DNA experts say just isn't done. That, however, was only after they'd used video enhancement of the motel-room encounter to discern that the killer had a telltale mole on his neck and to make out a crucial landmark outside the motel room window that allowed them to pinpoint its location using triangulation. Analysis of dirt lodged in the tires of the killer's car led them to the victim's body. It's enough to give a real district attorney, with a real case to sell to a jury based on real evidence, undeniable concerns about being held to an artificial "CSI" standard, said Josh Marquis, Clatsop County district attorney and Oregon director of the National District Attorneys Association. "I wouldn't say prosecutors are wringing their hands," Marquis said. But "CSI" does raise problems that require prosecutors to spend more time educating the jury pool about why certain tests are done, or aren't, in the course of an investigation, he said. "Many of us (prosecutors) have had the experience where the defense argues 'Why didn't you do DNA?' or 'Where are the fingerprints?' " Carol Mendelsohn, executive producer of "CSI" and "CSI: Miami," appreciates the prosecutors' dilemma. "I understand that we skew people's perception," she said. "We try to be as realistic as we can as a TV show." But she also pointed out that not every episode is neatly tied up at the end by the evidence. In a new plot, the team will come up short. And she credited her shows with giving many Americans - and potential jurors - a working forensic vocabulary that they might not have had otherwise. "I think the audience and many potential jurors are a lot like me; they've been intimidated by science," she said. "But they love it now. So, to that extent, I think we've opened minds." Be that as it may, Paul Logli, state's attorney for Winnebago County in Rockford, Ill., thinks shows like "CSI" may actually drive up prosecutorial costs. About a year and a half ago, one of his prosecutors had to overcome the "CSI effect" to win a simple burglary case that offered no fiber, fingerprint or DNA evidence. "Even though it was a crime where you wouldn't expect that kind of evidence," he said, "people who watch 'CSI' expect a magic bullet that will convince them who the perpetrator is." Robin Franzen is a staff writer for The Oregonian of Portland, Oregon |
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
