By John Hyde
Courtney Brooks, a junior at BYU, watches an average of one CSI episode per day. She simply enjoys the storyline: the gun-toting wizards of the forensic world making sense of another seemingly unsolvable crime. What she may not realize is her sense of reality is at risk - at least from the perspective of lawyers, judges and real crime scene analysts.
Over 27 million people crowd around the television every Thursday night to watch CSI. Including CSI:NY and CSI:Miami there are more than 50 million viewers nation-wide each week. With so many viewers watching so much crime-related television, there is sure to be an effect.
It''s called the CSI effect, to be exact.
From the perspective of many of those involved in the real-life field, the effect has been detrimental.
'When the show first came on I thought it would help our field,' said Gary Reed, a supervising crime scene analyst for the Las Vegas Police Department. 'But it''s actually been a harm. Personally I can''t even watch the show because it''s so unrealistic.'
It may be easy for Reed, a crime scene analyst of 17 years, to recognize what''s unrealistic. But the average CSI fan doesn''t have such a discerning eye. Consequently, there are impractical expectations placed on investigators.
'The show features very expensive equipment and expensive processes; people who watch the show have those expectations,' Reed said. 'In reality, CSI analysis is very time consuming and doesn''t always warrant the expensive techniques. The average person has a very unrealistic expectation of what CSI can do, or will do.'
What CSI can''t do is everything in every crime scene. Crimes against people, for example, are a higher priority than crimes against property, and usually will call for more expensive and extensive analysis.
'Sometimes people will want you to run a DNA test at a burglary scene, but that type of test is usually reserved for homicide and sexual assault cases,' Reed said.
And contrary to what a CSI fan might believe, such tests are not always required nor are they conclusive. Often tests, such as gunshot residue analysis, are very expensive and often inconclusive.
'An important thing to remember is that the less expensive and less glorified techniques, such as fingerprinting, are still very good and very effective,' Reed said.
But with the CSI effect, what''s effective has given way to what''s impressive. The need for high-tech, slam-dunk evidence has even crept into the jury panel.
'The fact that sometimes jurors have an idea of things that can be done that can''t always be done as seen on TV poses some problems,' said Sherry Ragan, criminal division chief for the Utah County attorney''s office. She said that a discussion with jurors of perceptions and expectations is usually necessary before every trial.
'Some judges have even changed their jury instruction to say that CSI is a TV show and you don''t have to have 50 different kinds of forensic evidence in a trial to convict someone,' said Stewart Smith, director of the state forensic crime lab for the Utah Department of Public Safety.
Most prosecuting lawyers would prefer a panel that didn''t need such clarification, said Ranier Munns, a partner in the Bogin, Munns & Munns law firm. During the voirdire process (the cross-examining of potential jurors), lawyers may view jurors'' television habits as reason enough to remove them. It might be hard, for example, to please a juror who is accustomed to having the murder weapon identified by creating a mold in the victim''s body, as was accomplished on a CSI episode.
But the CSI effect extends beyond even the criminal courts. Munns, who only practices personal injury, said there is even a need to inquire into television habits in civil courts.
'A common question we ask is if they watch shows like CSI, and if they do, what their perception is of how close those shows come to reality,' he said. 'If they think it''s close, if that''s what they''re expecting, that might be a juror we would challenge.'
What lawyers like Munns are trying to avoid, besides a panel hungry for mind-blowing forensic evidence, is a jury convinced that any such evidence is case closing. Not all test results that come out of a crime lab are flawless, of course, and not all crime labs are even accredited.
According to Smith there are over 8,000 forensic labs in the United States, and only 250 of those are accredited by the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors. The remaining 7750, he said, operate at some other level of certification; the minimum requirement for some lab technicians is only a GED and a few weeks training at a police department.
Although the CSI effect has been negative in most respects, there have been some upsides, such as an increased interest level in the forensic profession. Reed reports that in the Las Vegas Police Department there were 3,000 interest cards submitted to fill two crime scene analyst positions.
'We''ve seen a big increase in the number of interested people,' Reed said.
But even the job isn''t as glamorous as CSI would make it appear. A major misconception that is that the investigator gathers the information and evidence, analyzes the data, interviews witnesses, and makes arrests.
Lt. Phil Murphy of the Orem Department of Public Safety, who oversees evidence and the technicians who process it, said that in reality there is a distinction between the various responsibilities. What CSI portrays as a one-man job actually involves several individual specialists.
A crime scene investigator simply gathers and submits evidence. Then a detective interviews witnesses and follows up on the evidence, which is sent to a lab technician. The more difficult types of evidence processing are then sent to the expert scientists at the crime lab who will do further investigation.
Smith said there is a distinction that needs to be made between the lab technicians and the actual scientists who do the analytical lab work.
On CSI the TV show, the investigators analyze all kinds of evidence, but in real life each specific discipline (such as blood splatter analysis, ballistics, etc.) takes about two years to master and become an expert qualified to testify before a jury.
A lab technician does not require as much education or proficiency in their field of work, Smith said.
Becoming one of the expert lab scientists requires a degree in a science-related field, proficiency tests, internships, etc., and can be very expensive, Smith said.
While forensic analysis is a valuable tool in crime-solving and can make for exciting television, Lt. Murphy emphasized that it is far from being necessary all the time.
'A lot of crimes are solved through other means rather then forensics,' he said.