Perceived realism and the CSI-effect

Abstract

Anecdotal claims from legal professionals suggest that jurors are increasingly expecting DNA evidence in criminal trials, due to the popularity of crime-drama television programs such as Crime Scene Investigation (CSI). This study extends research on the “CSI-effect” by investigating whether mock jurors’ verdict decisions differ as a function of the perception that television reflects real-life practices (perceived realism), evidence type, and evidence strength. Participants read a trial transcript in which the prosecution presented either strong or weak DNA/fingerprint/eyewitness evidence. They then provided a verdict and answered a questionnaire to assess their perceived realism of television programs, including crime-drama. For all three types of evidence, jurors high in perceived realism were more likely to convict than those low in perceived realism. Additionally, jurors were more likely to vote guilty if presented with DNA or fingerprint evidence compared to eyewitness testimony, while evidence strength only influenced verdicts in the eyewitness conditions. Results suggest that perceived realism is not associated with jurors’ expectations that DNA evidence be presented in court, and thus do not provide support for the purported CSI-effect. Perceived realism may actually be a desirable trait for prosecutors, as jurors high in perceived realism were in general more likely to convict.

Keywords:

• CSI-effect
• perceived realism
• juror decision-making
• DNA
• fingerprint
• eyewitness testimony
• evidence strength

Public Interest Statement

Research has demonstrated that crime-drama television exaggerates the extent to which forensic techniques are used in criminal investigations. With the popularity of such shows, lawyers have expressed concern that jurors expect that forensic evidence will be presented, and are becoming increasingly likely to acquit when it is not. Previous research has focused on the quantity of crime drama that jurors consume. In the current study, we tested whether jurors’ perceived realism of crime drama is related to their verdict decisions in the presence or absence of forensic evidence. We found that regardless of the type of evidence presented, jurors who displayed higher levels of perceived realism were more likely to convict than jurors who held more skeptical views. Additionally, jurors were more likely to vote guilty if they were shown DNA or fingerprint evidence as compared to eyewitness testimony, regardless of their perceptions of realism in television programming.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Logan A. Ewanation

Logan A. Ewanation is a PhD student in the psychology program at Carleton University, whose research primarily focuses on racial discrimination in the context of jury decision-making, as well as perceptions of evidence. Along with Susan Yamamoto and Jordan Monnink, he works in the Legal Decision-Making Lab run by Dr Evelyn M. Maeder. The lab investigates a number of issues in both the US and Canadian legal systems, with a particular emphasis on factors that may inappropriately influence jury decision-making. We aim to draw attention to these extra-legal factors in an attempt to ensure that defendants are provided with a fair and impartial trial, a central tenet of the criminal justice system.