The show CSI first appeared in the early 2000s and gained major popularity. Over time the show increased the expectations of viewers. The biggest expectations were the abilities of the crime scene investigators to always provide proof of evidence, as well as their methods used in gaining results from that evidence. Legal specialists anticipated the effects the show would have on the views of the legal system and how it would affect the juror process. This development is now referred to as the “CSI Effect” (Shelton, 2007). This effect explains that jurors were making decisions based off of what they saw on TV. This paper will analyze a specific episode of the show CSI: Miami. To be analyzed are the realistic and non-realistic actions taken …show more content…
When he got to the hotel room he found his wife knocked out in the bed and the man handcuffed to the bed. He admitted to bringing a weapon but did not use it, he just scared him, and left it there. In another lab the shards of glass found in the hotel room are being examined. Fingerprints found, on what is revealed to be a vial, are matched to another woman. The woman is found and questioned and it turns out that she too had a sexual encounter with the man, where he also drugged her and robbed her. Her whereabouts at the time of the murder are questioned and she claims she was at a personal shopping trip and provided a receipt as …show more content…
The episode ends with the discovery that the woman, whose fingerprints were found on the vial, turned out to be the killer. It was revealed that the receipt provided at the time of her questioning was a fake, to cover up her alibi. She is tracked down and they search her vehicle. In the vehicle they find the bloody knife in the trunk of her car. She admitted she saw the man and the woman downstairs at the hotel bar and decided to follow them. She enters the room in an attempt to get the ring back that was stolen from her. She states that after he ridiculed her for what she had done, she flipped out and picked up the knife that was left behind and began to stab
Since the airing of the CSI: Crime Scene Investigation and the other televised series that followed have led jurors to compare fiction with reality. The shows have changed the view on the real world of forensic science as the series have a world of forensic science of their own. For this paper the televised series titled Bones by forensic anthropologist Kathy Reichs will be used as an example for comparison. In the series Bones Dr. Temperance Brenan arrives at the scene of the crime to examine the skeletal remains found in the scene of the crime equipped with one or more forensic kits. Upon momentarily examining the skeletal remains Dr. Brenan is able to determine the gender, ethnicity, and age. When this type of scenario is compared to nonfictional
They tell her that they have found him but only a part of him. His jaw bone. This make Olivia trave back to her home town Medford. Terry’s family are having his funural so on her way there she decied to stop by her grandmothers old house. In the car she also decied that it would be a good idea to not tell any about who she really was.Olivia happens to meet a woman named Nora that lives next door and she is told that Nora was her grandmothers best friend. At this point Nora tells Olivia lots of information about her family and ends up asking her to take her to Terry’s feneral. This is a preferct cover for her. With being aroud family member that she doesn’t know or have been around makes it even harder to keep her past a sercret. After seeing and hearing lots of things from many different people Olivia wants to solve her perents murders. Along the way after she moves into her grandmother old house she picks up an frien named Duncan and the grow closer and
They have a heated conversation about the women he killed and she sides with Redding. Dean says something bad about her son Christopher and he snaps, grabs Cassie of the couch, but before he could cause any harm Dean had him pinned up against the was choking him till he let go of her. A young college student Named Curt was found dead after the death of Christopher’s mother tracing Dna back to him the skin found under her fingernails. Someone didn't like how they went to visit Mrs. Simmons so after them leaving not an hour later she was found dead so she couldn't give out any information. But someone had killed Curt the same way Curt had killed Mrs. Simmons like Redding (cut them,bind them, hang them). So that meaning there must have been two accomplices is Es. One was Curt a disorganized killer. It the other was very organized left no evidence ever. But Kurt had. No communication with Mrs Simmons so why would he kill her… Unless the other accomplices wanted her dead, so they switched and killed each others victims. Curt was dead, so whoever killed Curt must have been the one who wanted Mrs Simmons dead. Who would want her dead, though the only person who ever had a problem with her was… Huh her living flesh and blood Christopher. He knew he wanted her dead, so he told Kurt but Kurt wasn't good enough and left behind evidenced so he must kill him before the FBI finds him and hurts him till he talks. So the other accomplice indubitably was Christopher. They had to stop him before it's too late and he kills
Kassin, Saul, and Lawrence Wrightsman (Eds.). The Psychology of Evidence and Trial Procedure. Chapter 3. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1985. Print.
...the public opinion of government trustworthiness. Studies have not been able to clearly define if the CSI effect has had an actual influence on the outcome of trials. However surveys indicate many possible jurors believe they are more knowledgeable about criminology after watching the shows. CSI viewers may become more knowledgeable about forensic science and investigation processes but that knowledge does not affect the outcome of the criminal justice process.
Simpson case was an extraordinary example of the importance of ethical considerations during any investigative process. It was very unique, in that O.J Simpson, at the time, was very wealthy and was able to afford a great defense team (Gordon III, 1997). This case was also very unique, in that the extensive experience of the defense team was able to highlight their perspective on the poor handling of evidence and the costly mistakes made by the prosecution. It opened the eyes of the LAPD and forensic entities across the country (Gordon III, 1997). The decision of the jury was not a reflection of the prosecutions’ lack of evidence, however, it was the unethical behavior of the investigators involved, the questionability of the handling of the evidence by investigators and forensic analysts (Gordon III,
At trial, your life is in the palms of strangers who decide your fate to walk free or be sentenced and charged with a crime. Juries and judges are the main components of trials and differ at both the state and federal level. A respectable citizen selected for jury duty can determine whether the evidence presented was doubtfully valid enough to convict someone without full knowledge of the criminal justice system or the elements of a trial. In this paper, juries and their powers will be analyzed, relevant cases pertaining to jury nullification will be expanded and evaluated, the media’s part on juries discretion, and finally the instructions judges give or may not include for juries in the court. Introduction Juries are a vital object to the legal system and are prioritized as the most democratic element in our society, aside from voting, in our society today.
In a well-known study conducted by Judge Donald Shelton, jurors were asked various questions to see if there was a significant difference in the rate of acquittals between those who watched shows such as CSI and those who do not. Attorneys, judges, and journalists have claimed that watching television programs like CSI have caused jurors to wrongfully acquit guilty defendants when no scientific evidence has been presented. To test this, 1,027 jurors were randomly selected and given a questionnaire to fill out. Questions about their demographics were listed and the jurors were asked what kind of TV shows they watched, how often, and how real they believed these shows were. The survey asked questons about seven ty...
Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1992). Explaining the evidence: tests of the story model for juror decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62 (2), 189-206.
This has, however, been recently challenged as greater research has been conducted. According to Schweitzer and Saks (2007) “CSI viewers were more critical of the forensic evidence presented at the trial, finding it less believable” whilst also “express[ing] more confidence in their verdicts than non-viewers”, but later go on to state that “viewers of general crime programs ... did not differ significantly from their non-viewing counterparts … suggesting that skepticism toward the forensic science testimony was specific to those whose diet consisted of heavy doses of forensic science television programs”. Professor Tom R. Tyler is quoted in Schweitzer and Saks (2007) stating that “no existing empirical research shows that [the CSI effect] actually occurs”. This stance is similarly mirrored in other research papers on the topic, including Tyler (2006) which states that “there is no direct research evidence that watching CSI has changed juror standards of reasonable doubt.” Baskin and Sommers (2010) further suggest that the personality characteristics of jurors, such as authoritarianism and narcissism, ease of being influenced, and
Stark's office, his partner Jean had come in to finish the paperwork for Dr. Stark while he broke the bad news to the family. As Jean opened the medical closet where Dr. Stark kept all of the files, Moira Díaz’s dead body fell on top of him. Jean was confused why the body in the closet and why there were very distinct stab marks in her chest near her heart. That’s when it all came to him, Dr. Stark murdered her. Jean knew he must call the police right away before Dr. Stark came back. It was to late, as soon as he pulled out his phone and was about to dial the number Dr. Stark Stabbed him in the back multiple times to conceal his secret. Since Jean and his wife Marie Divorced it was easy to ly to the owner of the hospital and said “Jean told me he had some mental health problems, so he is vacationing for an indefinite amount of time. Until then, could I have a new
CBS’s CSI: Crime Scene Investigation exploded into popularity when it aired in 2000, opening doors for the creation of other similar criminal investigative television shows involving forensic evidence such as Cold Case, Criminal Minds, and Bones. Many of these CSI-type shows present a murder or crime solved within an hour-long episode using forensic evidence conceived by glamorized CSI personnel and sometimes fabricated methodologies and technologies that only exist on television. Despite just being shows, one wonders whether these popular shows have skewered public perceptions about forensic evidence in real court cases and have impacted the outcome of court verdicts. The CSI Effect, explained by Kim, et all, was named after the television show
Every week more than 60 million Americans turn their television sets to tune to the popular crime investigation drama CSI: Crime Scene Investigation or one of its countless spin offs, which have become increasingly popular among the American public (Shelton, n.d.). The show has been a top rated drama since it was first aired in 2001, it has received several Emmy nominations, and many even claimed it has lead to the considerable increase in college students studying forensic science. Recently however, despite its many achievements several newspapers and magazine articles began warning about the impact the shows influence is having on our criminal justice system; they referred to the phenomenon as the CSI Effect. Max Houck, Director of the Forensic Science Initiative at West Virginia University, explains the CSI effect as “basically the perception of the near-infallibility of forensic science in response to the TV show” ( Podlas, 2010, p. 99). The concern among criminal justice experts and prosecutors is that the so called CSI effect creates unrealistic expectations that every case must be solved with high tech forensic tests, which they believe, has a significant impact on juror decision making. Exposure to the dramatized and fictional depiction of crime solving portrayed by these television shows has had a significant impact on viewer’s conception of reality, which has negatively altered the expectation of jurors and influenced jury verdicts.
There are two witnesses of the crime. At the junction of the robbery Mavis came to the post office to send a parcel, once she has seen the crime she fainted and collapsed in the doorway. Charlie after seen Mavis made the second shoot in the crime scene to the window. When Bert was trying to drag Mavis aside he cuts his hand on some of the glass on the floor. Johne saw the incident and tried to stop them and Ali hit John on the head with the butt of the gun and fired in his leg.
...mmitted, now they have to deal with figuring out who Mr. Owen is. After the tape finished, everyone started freaking out. Mrs. Rogers faints and they take her up to bed. The guests decided to figure out the situation. They all brought the letter that they received inviting them to the island to see if there is a clue. Most of the guests explained the murder cases they were accused of and denied all accusations.