The CSI Effect and the impact of DNA evidence on mock jurors and jury deliberations

References

• Baskin, D. R., & Sommers, I. B. (2010). Crime-show-viewing habits and public attitudes toward forensic evidence: The “CSI effect” revisited. The Justice System Journal, 31, 97–113.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brewer, P. R., & Ley, B. L. (2010). Media use and public perceptions of DNA evidence. Science Communication, 32, 93–117. doi:10.1177/1075547009340343.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cole, S. A. (2015). A surfeit of science: The “CSI effect” and the media appropriation of the public understanding of science. Public Understanding of Science, 24, 130–146. doi:10.1177/0963662513481294.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cole, S. A., & Dioso-Villa, R. (2011). Should judges worry about the “CSI Effect”? Court Review, 47, 19–31.
   Google Scholar
• DeMatteo, D., & Anumba, N. (2009). The validity of jury decision-making research. In J. D. Lieberman & D. A. Krauss (Eds.), Jury psychology: Social aspects of trial processes (pp. 1–23). Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Co.
   Google Scholar
• Devine, D. J. (2012). Jury decision making: The state of the science. New York: New York University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Devine, D. J., Buddenbaum, J., Houp, S., Studebaker, N., & Stolle, D. P. (2009). Strength of evidence, extraevidentiary influence, and the liberation hypothesis: Data from the field. Law and Human Behavior, 33, 136–148. doi:10.1007/s979-008-9144-x doi: 10.1007/s10979-008-9144-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Devine, D. J., & Caughlin, D. E. (2014). Do they matter? A meta-analytic investigation of individual characteristics and guilt judgments. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20, 109–134. doi:10.1037/law0000006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Devine, D. J., & Macken, S. (2016). Scientific evidence and juror decision making: Theory, empirical research, and future directions. In B. H. Bornstein & M. K. Miller (Eds.), Advances in Psychology and Law (pp. 95–139). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Durnal, E. W. (2010). Crime scene investigation (as seen on TV). Forensic Science International, 199, 1–5. doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2010.02.015.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodman-Delahunty, J., & Tait, D. (2006). DNA and the changing face of justice. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 38, 97–106. doi:10.1080/00450610609410636.
   Google Scholar
• Hawkins, I., & Scherr, K. (2017). Engaging the CSI effect: The influences of experience-taking, type of evidence, and viewing frequency on juror decision-making. Journal of Criminal Justice, 49, 45–52. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2017.02.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hawkins, I., & Scherr, K. (2018). ‘Engaging the CSI effect: The influences of experience-taking, type of evidence, and viewing frequency on juror decision-making’: Corrigendum. Journal of Criminal Justice, 57, 126. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2018.03.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayes-Smith, R. M., & Levett, L. M. (2011). Jury’s still out: How television and crime show viewing influences jurors’ evaluations of evidence. Applied Psychology In Criminal Justice, 7(1), 29–46.
   Google Scholar
• Holmgren, J. A., & Fordham, J. (2011). The CSI effect and the Canadian and the Australian jury. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 56, S63–S71. doi:10.1111/j.1556-4029.2010.01621.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hughes, T., & Magers, M. (2007). The perceived impact of crime scene investigation shows on the administration of justice. Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture, 14, 259–276.
   Google Scholar
• Klentz, B. A., Korona, T., Kellett, A. M., Caneschi, C. M., Chiodi, S. N., & Scannell, P. M. (2010, May). DNA evidence influences juror and jury verdicts: No CSI effect found. Poster session presented at the meeting of the Association for Psychological Science, Boston, MA.
   Google Scholar
• Klentz, B., & Pelletier, R. (2000, March). An analysis of deliberations of mock juries presented with DNA evidence. Poster session presented at the biennial meeting of the American Psychology – Law Society, New Orleans, LA.
   Google Scholar
• Klentz, B., Pelletier, R., Carvalho, L., Fredette, J., Lapsley, S., & Lavoie, K. (1999, June). DNA evidence and jurors’ verdicts: It doesn’t erase all reasonable doubt. Poster session at the annual meeting of the American Psychology Society, Denver, CO.
   Google Scholar
• Kovera, M. B., & Greathouse, S. M. (2008). Pretrial publicity: Effects, remedies, and judicial knowledge. In E. Borgida & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), Beyond common sense: Psychological science in the courtroom (pp. 261–279). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174. doi:10.2307/2529310.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ley, B. L., Jankowski, N., & Brewer, P. R. (2012). Investigating CSI: Portrayals of DNA testing on a forensic crime show and their potential effects. Public Understanding of Science, 21, 51–67. doi:10.1177/0963662510367571.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lieberman, J. D., Carrell, C. A., Miethe, T. D., & Krauss, D. A. (2008). Gold versus platinum: Do jurors recognize the superiority and limitations of DNA evidence compared to other types of forensic evidence? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 14, 27–62. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.14.1.27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maeder, E. M., & Corbett, R. (2015). Beyond frequency: Perceived realism and the CSI Effect. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 57, 83–114. doi:10.3138/cjccj.2013.E44.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mancini, D. E. (2011). The CSI effect reconsidered: Is it moderated by need for cognition? North American Journal of Psychology, 13, 155–174.
   Google Scholar
• Mancini, D. E. (2013). The “CSI effect” in an actual juror sample: Why crime show genre may matter. North American Journal of Psychology, 15, 543–564.
   Google Scholar
• Maricopa County Attorney’s Office. (2005, June). CSI: Maricopa County: The CSI effect and its real-life impact on justice. Maricopa County, AZ: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231–259. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.3.231.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Brien, B., Sommers, S. R., & Ellsworth, P. C. (2011). Ask and what shall you receive? A guide for using and interpreting what jurors tell us. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Law and Social Change, 14, 201–232.
   Google Scholar
• Ozechowski, T. J. (2014). Empirical Bayes MCMC estimation for modeling treatment processes, mechanisms of change, and clinical outcomes in small samples. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 82, 854–867. doi:10.1037/a0035889.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Penrod, S. D., Kovera, M. B., & Groscup, J. (2011). Jury research methods. In B. Rosenfeld & S. D. Penrod (Eds.), Research methods in forensic psychology (pp. 191–214). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Pezdek, K., Avila-Mora, E., & Sperry, K. (2010). Does trial presentation medium matter in jury simulation research? Evaluating the effectiveness of eyewitness expert testimony. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24, 673–690. doi:10.1002/acp.1578.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Podlas, K. (2006). “The CSI effect”: Exposing the media myth. Fordham Intellectual Property Media & Entertainment Law Journal, 16, 429–465.
   Google Scholar
• Rasbash, J., Browne, W., Healy, M., Cameron, B., & Charlton, C. (2015). MLwin (Version 2.34) [Computer software and manual]. Bristol: Centre for Multilevel Modelling.
   Google Scholar
• R Core Team. (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org/
   Google Scholar
• Robbers, M. L. P. (2008). Blinded by science: The social construction of reality in forensic television shows and its effect on criminal jury trials. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 19, 84–102. doi:10.1177/0887403407305982.
   Google Scholar
• Ruva, C. L., & LeVasseur, M. A. (2012). Behind closed doors: The effect of pretrial publicity on jury deliberations. Psychology, Crime & Law, 18, 431–452. doi:10.1080/1068316X.2010.502120.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schweitzer, N. J., & Saks, M. J. (2007). The CSI effect: Popular fiction about forensic science affects public expectations about real forensic science. Jurimetrics, 47, 1–8.
   Google Scholar
• Shelton, D. E., Kim, Y. S., & Barak, G. (2006). A study of juror expectations and demands concerning scientific evidence: Does the “CSI effect” exist? Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law, 9, 331–368.
   Google Scholar
• Shelton, D. E., Kim, Y. S., & Barak, G. (2009). An indirect-effects model of mediated adjudication: The CSI myth, the tech effect, and metropolitan jurors’ expectations for scientific evidence. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law, 12, 1–43.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, S. M., Patry, M. W., & Stinson, V. (2007). But what is the CSI Effect? How crime dramas influence people’s beliefs about forensic evidence. The Canadian Journal of Police and Security Services, 5, 187–195.
   Google Scholar
• Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (2012). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Stevens, D. J. (2008). Forensic science, wrongful convictions, and American prosecutor discretion. The Howard Journal, 47, 31–51. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2311.2008.00495.x.
   Google Scholar
• Stevenson, M. C., Bottoms, B. L., & Diamond, S. S. S. (2010). Jurors’ discussions of a defendant’s history of child abuse and alcohol abuse in capital sentencing deliberations. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16, 1–38. doi:10.1037/a0018404.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Studebaker, C. A., & Penrod, S. D. (2005). Pretrial publicity and its influence on juror decision making. In N. Brewer & K. D. Williams (Eds.), Psychology and law: An empirical perspective (pp. 254–275). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Thompson, W. C., Kaasa, S. O., & Peterson, T. (2013). Do jurors give appropriate weight to forensic identification evidence? Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 10, 359–397. doi: 10.1111/jels.12013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tyler, T. R. (2006). Viewing CSI and the threshold of guilt: Managing truth and justice in reality and fiction. The Yale Law Journal, 115, 1050–1085. doi: 10.2307/20455645
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar