User:Ntackabery/sandbox

In particular, prosecutors have reported feeling pressured to provide DNA evidence even when eyewitness testimony is available. In fact, in a study of 444 prosecutors, 56% believed the CSI Effect to almost always or always influence juries, and 81% believed the CSI Effect to influence judges. In one highly publicized incident, Los Angeles County, California District Attorney Steve Cooley blamed actor Robert Blake's acquittal on murder charges on the CSI effect. Cooley noted that the not guilty verdict came despite two witness accounts of Blake's guilt, and claimed that the jury members were "incredibly stupid".

By 2005, some judges and prosecutors had begun altering their trial preparations and procedures in an attempt to counter the CSI effect. Some ask questions about crime drama television viewership during voir dire to target biased jurors. For example, in Charles and Drake v. State (2010), the defendants were convicted of second degree murder, and during voir dire, the judge presented a question about the CSI Effect. In this case, the Maryland appellate court ruled the CSI Effect voir dire question inappropriate due to its biased language and use of the term "convict" without mention of acquittal. Prosecutors have also used opening statements and closing arguments to minimize the possible impact of the CSI effect. In Goff v. State (2009), the prosecutor asked jurors during voir dire about their ability to render a verdict without scientific evidence, and then reminded them during closing arguments about this question. In this case, the mention of the CSI Effect was considered acceptable because the language used was neutral and unbiased. Additionally, jury instructions have also been used as a means of informing jurors about the CSI Effect. In Atkins v. State (2011), the jury was instructed that scientific evidence is not necessary for a case to be valid. The court ruled that this jury instruction regarding scientific evidence was improper because the State was not held to its burden of proof. Furthermore, prosecutors have even hired expert witnesses to explain why particular forms of physical evidence are not relevant to their cases. In one Australian murder case, the defense counsel requested a judge-only trial to avoid having DNA evidence misinterpreted by a jury.

By 2006, the CSI effect had become widely accepted as reality among legal professionals, despite little empirical evidence to validate or disprove it. A 2008 survey by researcher Monica Robbers showed that roughly 80 percent of all American legal professionals believed they had had decisions affected by forensic television programs.