The CSI effect

By Vicky Wicks, Journal Staff Writer | Sunday, August 28, 2005

Previous Page

Share

• del.icio.us
• Digg
• NewsVine
• Fark

Print

Email

Television crime dramas -- in particular the shows featuring the use of forensic science in solving cases -- are so popular with audiences that networks are creating one spin-off after another. These shows bombard viewers with a fictional version of the reality of crime-fighting and prosecution, and viewers take much of what they see as truth.

As a result, prosecutors throughout the nation are finding that people, particularly those serving as jurors, expect to see in court what they see on TV.

Assistant attorney general Rod Oswald said that he does not watch crime scene investigation shows because the plots are "an oversimplification of the real work and analysis that goes into solving crimes with forensics. I think it cheapens and downplays the actual intensity and labor that goes into solving these cases."

They may be simplistic, but CSI shows, watched by potential jurors, affect how deputies in the Pennington County State's Attorney's Office approach cases, officials say.

During jury selection, prosecutors nationwide now address the issue of television expectations versus reality, deputy state's attorney Jennifer Utter said.

Chief deputy state's attorney Lara Roetzel, who, along with Oswald, successfully prosecuted Tory Teigen in June for kidnapping, said she talked to panelists during jury selection to warn them that the trial would not resemble cases they might see on television.

Although evidence in the Teigen case used the type of forensic science TV viewers are accustomed to seeing — DNA, hair analysis, handwriting analysis, meteorology and entomology (or "bug science") — the process of presenting the evidence to the jury was tedious, Roetzel said.

Foundation had to be established for every piece of evidence, including proof that the chain of custody was unbroken, which required an expert witness to confirm authenticity of the packaging before unsealing the package and discussing the piece of evidence.

Television shows "glamorize what we do," Roetzel said, but even in a compelling case such as Teigen's, "jurors are bored out of their minds" during much of the trial.

State's Attorney Glenn Brenner agreed that real-life court is not nearly as entertaining as television crime dramas would have the public believe. "There's not one trial anymore that I personally litigate that I don't make sure jurors know the difference between drama and reality," Brenner said. Before trial, he tells jurors, "This isn't going to be CSI today," he said.

The entertainment factor demands that investigations and court cases move

quickly, Brenner said. And if television dramas mirrored real life, no one would watch.

Jurors have "a general expectation that there'll be more evidence than is practical," deputy state's attorney Ken Varns said. DNA and fingerprint evidence, in particular, are expected, although that kind of evidence is not often left behind at a crime scene. And even if it is, if there is no question of the identity of the culprit, analysis is not done, Varns said.

He gave as an example the murder case against John Krogman, who pleaded guilty to stabbing a young woman to death in September 2004 in Rapid City. Three eyewitnesses identified Krogman as the attacker, and he was apprehended at the scene, Varns said. Good sense told him that there was no need to test the knife — found tucked inside a car frame near the scene — for DNA. Still, as the time of trial grew closer, Varns second-guessed his decision not to get a DNA analysis in the event the jury would expect it.

But Kevin Krull, deputy state's attorney, said that he occasionally talks to jurors after a trial and has "never had one say, ‘you should have had fingerprints, should have had DNA.'"

Krull and Roetzel prosecute sex crimes, and about 90 percent of those cases are crimes against children, Krull said.

Children typically do not report crimes immediately, and those who do often have been molested over their clothing, in circumstances where there would be no expectation of finding DNA or fingerprints, Krull said. He gave as an example a report made to authorities by two young girls who said they had been sexually touched over their swim suits in a swimming pool. Although the report was made the same day as the incident, the circumstances made DNA evidence highly unlikely, he said.

To justify gathering DNA evidence, there would have to be an expectation that DNA would be found, he said. Bed sheets where a victim had been raped would be examined for DNA; a stolen television in a pawn shop would not, even though a jury might believe that it would be.

Varns said prosecutors now take the time to explain to jurors why physical evidence is not found. Dr. Lori Strong, a Rapid City pediatrician who does forensic examination of children who report sexual assault, is frequently called as an expert to explain why it is common to have no physical signs of assault.

Oswald said he believes criminals are learning by watching crime shows and taking steps to clean up crime scenes and destroying evidence.

And are jurors getting smarter from watching the shows that offer quite a bit of information that is scientifically valid? Possibly, Utter said. During the jury selection process, she has discovered that almost all of the panelists watch CSI shows and that some of the logic they apply to a case could stem from television.

In a recent case in which a defendant was found standing over a stunned victim who had been severely beaten in a bathroom, Utter offered no expert testimony. She showed a picture of the victim's head with two arced cuts and implied in opening statements that the defendant had hit the victim with the toilet seat.

Utter said she was willing to bet that if she asked any of those jurors — who found the defendant guilty — they would say they didn't need DNA evidence. "Science can be corroborative, but it's not always necessary," she said. "Compelling eyewitness testimony ... still remains our first and best evidence in our cases."

Oswald concurred when he said that, in general, "forensic evidence is the corroborating evidence to establish credibility of the whole case. Sometimes, it's a crucial finding, but more often, it corroborates the state's theory and witnesses."

"That's one thing we have to drive home" in opening statements and closing arguments, Krull said. Jurors must be told, "Don't leave your common sense outside the door of the jury room."

Contact Vicky Wicks at 394-8318 or vicky.wicks@rapidcityjournal.com