• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Law day presentation
 

Law day presentation

on

  • 991 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
991
Views on SlideShare
989
Embed Views
2

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
14
Comments
0

1 Embed 2

http://www.slideshare.net 2

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Law day presentation Law day presentation Presentation Transcript

    • The Effect
      Susan Shankles
      TPD Crime Lab Superintendent
      Hon. Teresa Godoy
      Superior Court Judge & Former Prosecutor
    • CSI effect – Many definitions
      The best-known definition states that CSI creates unreasonable expectations on the part of jurors, making it more difficult for prosecutors to obtain convictions.
      The second definition, which runs contrary to the first, refers to the way that CSI raises the stature of scientific evidence to virtual infallibility, thus making scientific evidence impenetrable.
      The final definition focuses on CSI's increasing lay interest in forensics and science. Thus, viewers who serve as jurors will be more interested in and able to follow scientific evidence. They may even become interested in academic training and careers in the forensics field.
    • CSI effect in the courtroom
    • Who does this “effect” affect?
      Police
      Over-collect evidence; higher expectations of the value of evidence in solving a case
      Attorneys
      Burden to request tests to cover all eventualities
      May dismiss certain cases for lack of forensic evidence
      Juries
      View a lack of forensic evidence as “reasonable doubt”
      Hold forensic evidence as infallible or unrebuttable proof of guilt
      Forensic Labs
      Cost overruns
      Backlogs
    • Juror Perspective
      Expect to see solid physical evidence indicating the defendant
      Likely to ignore circumstantial evidence
      Always assume DNA evidence should be found at the scene
      If physical evidence is found, it is now much less likely to be questioned by jurors
    • CSI and the Courtroom
      Experts have claimed an incidence of the “CSI effect” in courtrooms
      Trend in which TV shows increase the expectations of victims’ and jury members’ concerning forensic evidence and the level of crime scene investigation
      Evidence is being presented differently at trial
    • 38 percent suffered at least one “CSI” acquittal or hung jury
      70 percent voir dire on CSI (type shows)
      72 percent believe that CSI has caused some jurors to believe that they have an “expertise” gained from watching CSI
    • Jurors demanding DNA
      In a recent murder trial in Phoenix, a bloody coat was introduced as evidence. It was not tested for DNA.
      The jury informed the judge that testing was not performed on the coat even though it was not needed because the defendant admitted that the coat was his.
      The judge then determined that “television had taught the jury what DNA tests were but didn’t teach them in what circumstances they can be used in”
    • Nielsen Ratings Sept. 1-8 2008
      10. "Bones," Fox, 9.74 million viewers.
      11. "The OT," Fox, 8.99 million viewers.
      12. Republican Convention Coverage (Thursday), NBC, 8.66 million
      14. "NCIS," CBS, 8.17 million viewers.
      15. "Two and a Half Men," CBS, 7.83 million viewers.
      16. "House," Fox, 7.75 million viewers.
      17. "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation," CBS, 7.27 million viewers.
    • Sure It Looks Cool But…
    • Science vs. Entertainment
      Truth doesn’t always make good fiction
      Story lines need to be “jazzed” to meet the current trends in entertainment
      It’s all about the ratings, not the facts of the case
      Dramatizations “clean up” the messy truth
      More makeup and larger budgets
      Everything gets solved in an hour
    • Interesting Facts
      “40 percent of the ‘forensic science’ in these shows does not even exist. That’s why CSI won a Saturn Award for the best science fiction drama in 2004, beating out Buffy the Vampire Slayer.” –Jennifer Joyce, circuit attorney
      The real Miami Forensic Crime Lab has stated that the way CSI-Miami portrays one case would bankrupt the budget for the entire year.
    • CSI Myths
      Myth 1: Laboratory Personnel can examine evidence as soon as it gets to the lab
      Usually takes months before time permits an examination of the evidence due to back logs and quality control procedures
    • Myth 2: One person can examine all types of evidence
      There are few ‘generalists’ in today’s forensics
      The expertise required for each section of forensics sometimes requires one piece of evidence to be examined by more than one individual
    • Myth 3: Fingerprints susceptible to testing and identification are always found
      Finding identifiable fingerprints that can be collected and are of a high enough quality to do an automated search are rare
      Normally fingerprint comparison must be done by ‘hand’
    • “I can get a print off the air”
    • Myth 4: Testing for drugs and chemicals in blood is quick and easy
      Numerous drugs, botanicals, & chemicals can be present in blood
      Numerous instruments to identify these various compounds
      Process often takes
      weeks or months to
      complete
    • Myth 5: The cooperative crime scene
      The ‘perfect’ evidence is rarely there
      Technology has greatly improved evidence collection but no technological advancements can find nonexistent evidence
      Time between occurrence and discovery of the crime is the biggest factor
    • Myth 6: The fully equipped crime lab
      TV forensic labs are always fully equipped with the most up to date technology
      Even the labs with the largest budgets cannot afford to have the same lab quality as the labs on TV dramas
      Shortages occur with building space, funds, equipment and proficient personnel
    • The CSI Crime Lab
    • An Actual Crime Lab
    • Top 10 Reasons Forensic Science is Not Like CSI
      10. A forensic entomologist is never in charge.
      9. Won't move to a new city to get better ratings.
      8. Real forensic labs can afford light bulbs.
      7. Hummers are not standard issue work vehicles.
      6. DNA results take weeks, not minutes or hours.
      5. Weapons are microscopes and test tubes - not Glock 9s and Sig Sauer P229s
      4. Not every sample gets run on the GC/MS.
      3. Don’t interview suspects
      2. Indoor crime scenes are very dirty and messy.
      1. It takes longer than 1 hour to solve a case.
    • How Things Have Changed
      No DNA- blood typing is as good as it got.
      Fingerprint analysis was done completely by hand.
      Databases for fingerprints/DNA didn’t exist.
      Technology
    • Milestones in Forensic Science
      Alphonse Bertillion: 1879—devised the first system of personal identification using body measurements.
      Francis Galton: 1892—conducted the first definitive study of fingerprints and their classification.
      Leone Lattes: 1901—developed a procedure to determine blood type from dried bloodstains
      Edmond Locard: 1910—created one of the first forensic labs in Lyons, France. Also developed the Locard exchange principle.
    • More Milestones…
      Calvin Goddard: 1925—used a comparison microscope to determine if a particular gun fired a bullet.
      J. Edgar Hoover: 1932—FBI forensic lab was created.
      Dr. Alex Jeffries: 1985—created DNA typing or “fingerprinting.”
      FBI: 1998-99—created IAFIS and CODIS
    • Another Effect:Increased Public Awareness of Forensics
      Some people now look forward to jury duty
      Better sense of investigations
      Popularized investigatory science programs
      Shifting demographics in forensics field
    • Efforts to Minimize Potential Effects
      In Arizona prosecutors now use "negative evidence witnesses" to try to assure jurors that it is not unusual for real crime-scene investigators to fail to find DNA, fingerprints and other evidence at crime scenes.
      Prosecutors often question the jury about their TV viewing habits during voir dire.
    • Are You Interested in a Career in Forensic Science?
      Add CSI Summer School Video
    • Criminalist vs. Crime Scene Specialist
    • Thank You