First reported in the news media in 2005, this is the tendency -- caused by the influence of ''{{CSI}},'' its [[SpinOff spinoffs]] and its imitators -- for juries to refuse to consider as trustworthy any evidence but the most comprehensive crime scene analysis, and to equate the absence of same with reasonable doubt, even for the most trivial cases.

The CSI Effect's most dangerous effect is that, due to the 'time compression' required to tell a 45-minute television story, jurors will often mistakenly assume that test results can be obtained in a matter of hours, rather than the months it may take for such things as DNA evidence to be properly processed.

The results of CSI Effect are often so damaging to a trial that a judge will ask potential jurors if they've ever watched CSI or its spinoffs. [[{{Seanette}} One editor]] recently served on a jury, and the panel of prospective jurors was asked this by the prosecutor, whose follow-up question was whether any prospective juror thought real investigations actually worked that way.

See these stories from ''[[http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/articles/050425/25csi.htm U.S News and World Report]]'', ''[[http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-08-05-csi-effect_x.htm USA Today]]'' and [[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/21/earlyshow/main681949.shtml CBS News]].

A second CSI Effect has been observed in the behavior of criminals -- more are now aware of forensic evidence, and as such take steps to minimize it that are relatively novel, such as picking up spent shell casings. Even more worrying, some criminals have deliberately planted DNA samples from other plausible suspects to derail any investigation.

A third CSI Effect has been observed in the behaviour of non-criminals -- more are aware that touching stuff damages evidence, somewhat mitigating the second factor.

Probably related to the third kind, some CSI labs have complained about the fact that more police officers call them to crime scenes and submit much more evidence to them. Yes, that's right; real-life CSI techs are complaining about being expected to help solve more crimes. (Admittedly, forensic labs, like every other police department, are likely overworked and underpaid, so sending in extraneous evidence on minor crimes is similar to the little old lady who's always calling the police in every time she hears a noise outside her house)

And there's even a fourth CSI Effect, which runs counter to the first--defense attorneys have noted that if there is a prosecution forensic report during a trial, the conclusions are invariably treated as absolute gospel. This happens despite the fact that the science behind forensics is constantly evolving, and many labs are prone to using methods no longer considered to be certain (one particularly notorious case down in Texas involved a man who was convicted on the basis of his lip prints--a method of identification that hasn't been widely regarded as reliable for decades).

Even worse, a man in Oklahoma spent almost two decades on ''death row'' for a crime that it was later proved he didn't commit. The primary evidence against him, aside from blatantly specious interrogation tactics? The shape of his hair follicles, a mode of identification that was proven useless in 1885, over a century before the murder took place!

It's worth pointing out that the CSI Effect is entirely based on anecdotal evidence. Many empirical [[http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=958224 studies]] made to show its existence and influence on jurors and law enforcement officers (the first, 2nd and fourth kind) have [[http://law.fordham.edu/publications/articles/200flspub5906.pdf never managed to demonstrate the so-called CSI effect]]. There have, however, been cases of criminals trying to clear away evidence after watching CSI, though ironically, this clean up is what got them caught. So far, the only statistically proven "CSI effect" turns out to be that those shows have caused application rates in forensic courses & programs to explode (as have highly publicized trials like O.J. Simpson's).

A similar phenomenon was noted during the 1950s and 1960s and given the name "The PerryMason Syndrome", when lawyers noted a hesitance on the part of juries to convict without a confession on the stand like those with which Perry Mason inevitably ended his cases.

This is a specific subset of RealityIsUnrealistic.
----
<<|{{Fan-Speak}}|>>
<<|MetaConcepts|>>
<<|AudienceReactionTropes|>>