Crime Scene Investigations and Testimony
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
It used to be a complicated process at each new trial where scientists educated the jurors on what forensic science could do and what it had been able to reveal in that particular case. Sometimes this was such a new concept that it was not readily received as reliable evidence. As knowledge of forensic science entered the mainstream, public acceptance of this technology increased exponentially and scientists breathed a sigh of relief. Their need for an accurate explanation of the science was still needed, but at least they were no longer starting from scratch. Jurors began to accept these new procedures and take them into consideration during trials.However the pendulum has swung the other way, with news stories bringing up cases where the jury has not been swayed by significant amounts of this incriminating forensic evidence. This is called the CSI Effect, since TV shows showing forensic science solving case after case have led jurors to trust this evidence more than might perhaps be warranted. Jurors are waiting for that lynchpin piece of amazing forensic work that makes it an open and shut case like they see on television and while forensic science can help build a case, it may not always be able to completely solve the case.
While the level of public awareness regarding forensic science is laudable, entertainment is just that and isn't a solid basis for judgment. Kathy spends considerable time working with the Bones cast and crew to ensure the science is accurate but even this does not replace expert testimony in real life trials. While we as an audience enjoy the stories, we need to consider real life cases through a different lens as a jury of peers, considering the actual evidence instead of comparing it to evidence on TV.
KathyReichs.com
