'CSI effect' tainting the real forensic evidence

Under the Microscope: One of the most popular programmes on TV at the moment is Crime Scene Investigation (CSI), a crime drama…

Under the Microscope: One of the most popular programmes on TV at the moment is Crime Scene Investigation (CSI), a crime drama starring a team of forensic scientists.

There is a suspicion in America among police and the legal profession that the popular success of CSI, CSI Miami, CSI New York and other similar TV dramas is producing unrealistic expectations in the minds of jurors - the CSI effect. On the other hand, a welcome spin-off of CSI and similar television dramas, is the presentation of scientific careers in an exciting and glamorous fashion. University courses in forensic science have greatly expanded in recent times. The current situation in forensic science is described by Max Houck in Scientific American, July 2006.

Forensic science means the application of science to the investigation of crime and presenting this evidence in the court of law. Most people have read the Sherlock Holmes stories, first published 1887, and remember that Holmes did his own forensic tests whenever possible. Forensic science was formalised as a profession in the early 1900s. Everyone is familiar with some of the classical forensic techniques - eg fingerprinting and blood tests. Forensic science was always a powerful tool in the fight against crime, although by no means infallible - remember the case of Annie Maguire, jailed in 1976 for making IRA bombs on the basis of a forensic test. Her conviction was overturned in 1991.

Forensic science burst onto the public stage in spectacular fashion in the 1990s with the advent of DNA fingerprinting. The tiniest biological sample left at the scene of a crime can now be used to confirm the presence of a suspect at the scene if the DNA fingerprints match. We have seen in Ireland how this technique has been spectacularly successful, for example in solving the murder of Marilyn Rynn.

READ MORE

In the early morning of December 22, 1995, Marilyn Rynn, a 41-year-old civil servant, was raped and murdered in Tolka Valley Park, Dublin. Her naked body wasn't found until January 7th, 1996. Fortunately, the weather was bitterly cold at the time and semen in her body from her attacker was sufficiently well-preserved to allow DNA fingerprinting to be carried out. Her killer was a suspect in the case. He researched DNA fingerprinting on the Internet and was convinced that any semen recovered from the body would be so degraded as to rule out DNA analysis. He freely gave a blood sample to the Garda for analysis. This sealed his fate and he was given a life sentence.

Apart from biological DNA analysis, chemical and physical analytical techniques have now been developed to an exquisite state of sensitivity, as have the various techniques of light and electron microscopy. Forensic science has recruited all of these techniques into its armoury and you can see their dazzling parade on CSI.

The problem is that television drama is not real life. On CSI the forensic scientist is an amalgam of policeman, crime investigator and forensic scientist. In reality, different professionals fulfil each role. On television, a team of investigators stick with a single case until it is solved. In reality many cases are ongoing at the same time and there is a backlog of cases. On television, the forensic science laboratory is lavishly equipped with state-of-the-art equipment. In reality, laboratories are not that well equipped and struggle to cope. On television, there are plenty of investigators; in reality, there are relatively few. On television, the results of tests are clear cut; in reality, the results are often ambiguous.

Legal professionals in America now fear what they call the "CSI effect". They suspect that jurors expect CSI standards to prevail in real life. A prominent district attorney said: "Jurors now expect us to have a DNA test for just about every case . . . They expect it to look like it does on TV." Lawyers now feel pressured to provide expensive and time consuming physical evidence even when this is unnecessary, eg providing DNA evidence that a suspect was at the scene of the crime even when the suspect admits being there. Jurors seem suspicious when the physical evidence is not produced.

As the techniques of forensic science grow more powerful and as expectations rise, police investigators feel pressured to collect far more evidence at crime scenes than heretofore to be submitted for forensic analysis. All of this material must be logged and put into storage pending analysis. Storing and tracking this material alone is presenting law enforcement agencies and forensic laboratories with a big challenge.

One thing I welcome from the popularity of shows like CSI is the popular exposure they give to science. Up until now, such popular exposure of professional areas was reserved for medicine and law. There is no doubt in my mind that hospital drama series like ER and the various courtroom drama shows have attracted many young people into medicine and law. Now, at last, we have some sexy science on television. There is something of a mismatch between CSI and forensic science on the ground but I'm sure this is no greater than the mismatch between ER and real hospitals.

One very important spin-off of the popular forensic science dramas is the popular interest and respect for science they have generated. Enrolment in forensic science educational programmes has dramatically increased and new courses are springing up. At UCC we have just introduced the new option of a BSc degree in Chemistry with Forensic Science (inquiries to Prof JD Glennon, 021-4902208). William Reville is associate professor of biochemistry and Public Awareness of science officer at UCC - http://understandingscience.ucc.ie