skip navigation

Justinfo Subscribe to Stay Informed

Add your conference to our Justice Events calendar


NCJRS Abstract


Subscribe to Stay Informed
Want to be in the know? JUSTINFO is a biweekly e-newsletter containing information about new publications, events, training, funding opportunities, and Web-based resources available from the NCJRS Federal sponsors. Sign up to get JUSTINFO in your inbox.

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Library collection.
To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the NCJRS Abstracts Database.

How to Obtain Documents
NCJ Number: NCJ 221501     Find in a Library
Title: CSI Effect: Does It Really Exist?
  Document URL: HTML PDF 
Author(s): Donald E. Shelton
  Journal: NIJ Journal  Issue:259  Dated:March 2008  Pages:1 to 6
Date Published: 03/2008
Page Count: 6
  Series: NIJ Journal
  Annotation: This study tested the validity of the common belief that juror expectations for the persuasiveness of forensic evidence presented at trial and their demand for it being present as a condition for conviction is linked to their having watched law-related television shows that focus on such evidence in solving crimes.
Abstract: The study found that although viewers of such television shows had higher expectations for scientific evidence than jurors who did not view such programs, these expectations had little, if any, influence on the respondents' propensity to convict defendants. Still, it is important for judges and lawyers to appreciate that juror expectations for forensic evidence have a bearing on the kinds of evidence they associate with certainty of a defendant's guilt. This fact should influence jury instructions given by the judge and information given to jurors about how evidence presented or that is unavailable bears upon the strength of a case. It is inevitable that recent advances in forensic technology bearing upon evidence collection and analysis will find their way into television scripts that are influenced by dramatic impact and time constraints. This requires that court personnel give attention to correcting any unrealistic expectations television-viewing jurors may have. For this study, 1,027 randomly summoned jurors in Ann Arbor, MI, completed a written questionnaire in June, July, and August 2006. The survey asked questions about seven types of cases and the types of evidence prospective jurors expected to see for each offense type, with a list of evidence types provided for selection. They were then asked the verdict they would render under 13 case scenarios of evidence presentation for each type of case. In addition to demographic information, participants were asked about the television programs they watched, how often, and how "real" they believed the programs to be. 1 figure and 2 notes
Main Term(s): Criminology
Index Term(s): Evidence ; Juror characteristics ; Jury decisionmaking ; Television programming ; Forensics/Forensic Sciences ; NIJ grant-related documents
Type: Report (Study/Research)
Country: United States of America
Language: English
  To cite this abstract, use the following link:

* A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's web site is provided.