LAT: 'CSI' Effect or Just Flimsy Evidence? The Jury Is Out

'CSI' Effect or Just Flimsy Evidence? The Jury Is Out
The Blake case raises the issue of whether forensic shows influence how much proof is needed.

By Andrew Blankstein and Jean Guccione, Times Staff Writers


....By the end of the first week, (Lorie Moore, a Robert Blake trial juror) said in an interview Thursday, she and the other early skeptics were mostly in agreement with the majority, having decided that the evidence presented hadn't proved the prosecution's case.

One factor that may have played into that perception, experts suggest, was an increasing desire on the part of juries for the kind of certainty shown on television programs such as "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation," in which crimes are solved conclusively in less than an hour.

Across the country, prosecutors say juries are demanding more from them. In the Blake case, jurors said Thursday that they wanted more-convincing evidence, such as conclusive gunshot residue on Blake's hands, or a fingerprint on the murder weapon, or more precision from casual eyewitnesses about Blake's actions around the time Bakley was shot to death in a parked car in Studio City.

"There is no doubt that there's increasing expectation by jurors of (the evidence) they're going to see," said Joshua Marquis, an Oregon prosecutor and member of the board of directors of the National District Attorneys Assn. "Prosecutors across the country are very concerned about this."

Marquis found it disturbing that Blake jurors "seemed very dismissive of circumstantial evidence," he said. "Well, guess what? In most cases … you don't have physical evidence."...


http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-jurors18mar18,0,2734102.story?coll=la-home-headlines

that gunshot residue tests are VERY easy to pass. Even if you just shot up a store full of old ladies, you can wipe your hands on a rag and pass.
Likewise, failing one is no big deal either---smoking a ciggarette can foul up the test.

Fingerprints can be wiped off with a rag as well.

This kind of evidence is hard to get if the killer knows what he is doing.

eyewitness evidence looks good in court, but in reality it is very, very unreliable. 10 people can see the exact same thing and remember it 10 different ways, none of which might be the way it actually happened.

doubt...what a concept!!!

The public NEEDS to understand that sometimes, the prosecutor is looking to make a name or win a case and NOT seek justice.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE


it is not enough in America to run around the streets yelling j'acuse, and expecting the gendarmes to drag you off to the guillotine. Intelligent people require proof of some kind.

Perhaps this explains why most lawyers are Re-thugs.