Get access

The CSI Effect and the Canadian and the Australian Jury


  • Janne A. Holmgren Ph.D.,

    1. Department of Justice Studies, Mount Royal University, 4825 Mount Royal Gate, SW Calgary, AB T3H 5S6, Canada.
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Judith Fordham B.Sc., L.L.B. (Hons.)

    1. Jury Research Unit, Centre for Forensic Science, University of Western Australia, M420, Stirling Highway, Crawley 6009, Australia.
    Search for more papers by this author

  • Canadian preliminary findings were presented at the International Association for Identification’s 92nd International Educational Conference in San Diego, July 24, 2007. The combined data research, between Canada and Australia, was presented at the 61st Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, February 16–21, 2009, in Denver, CO.

  • Funded in part by the Mount Royal University’s Research Reserve Fund.

Additional information—reprints not available from author:
Janne A. Holmgren, Ph.D.
Department of Justice Studies
Mount Royal University
4825 Mount Royal Gate
SW Calgary, AB T3H 5S6


Abstract:  Television shows, such as CBS’s CSI and its spin-offs CSI: Miami; CSI: Las Vegas; and CSI: New York, have sparked the imagination of thousands of viewers who want to become forensic scientists. The shows’ fictional portrayals of crime scene investigations have prompted fears that jurors will demand DNA and other forensic evidence before they will convict, and have unrealistic expectations of that evidence. This has been dubbed the “CSI effect.” This phenomenon was explored using results from a Canadian study based on 605 surveys of Canadian college students who would be considered jury-eligible and Australian quantitative and qualitative findings from a study that surveyed and interviewed real posttrial jurors. Information about the way jurors deal with forensic evidence in the context of other evidence and feedback about the way in which understanding such evidence could be increased were gained from both these studies. The comparison provides insights into the knowledge base of jurors, permitting adaptation of methods of presenting forensic information by lawyers and experts in court, based on evidence rather than folklore. While the Canadian juror data showed statistically significant findings that jurors are clearly influenced in their treatment of some forensic evidence by their television-viewing habits, reassuringly, no support was found in either study for the operation of a detrimental CSI effect as defined above. In the Australian study, in fact, support was found for the proposition that jurors assess forensic evidence in a balanced and thoughtful manner.

Get access to the full text of this article