CSI

I’d like to present something of a counter to my earlier post re: my theory that O.J. Simpson was incalculably detrimental to the world of criminal defense.  The proliferation of science-based crime dramas on television has been a great BOON to the legal world, in particular criminal defense.

Here is why:  I believe that in many criminal cases juries fail to truly apply the constitutional legal standard of Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.*  This is probably particularly true when the crime or underlying facts are morally repugnant.  (Think sexual assaults involving children.)  In such cases, I suspect that jurors are so fearful of acquitting the defendant (thereby allowing them free to victimize others) that the deliberation (both internal and external) becomes more akin to a what-do-I-think-happened rather than one of carefully measuring the strength of the case presented and asking whether it matches the elements of the charge.  In other words, when the crime is morally repugnant, Jurors are willing to overlook shortcomings in evidence when reasonably certain that the defendant at least did some pretty bad shit.

Shows like CSI have implanted the idea in Jurors minds that evidence should be abundant, rock-solid, scientific, and hopefully DNA based.  This is probably unrealistic in most cases.  But in my view it offsets the tendency to convict if the jurors belief is merely it’s-more-likely-than-not the defendant is guilty.  It carries power when a defense attorney says “where is the DNA in this case?  What?  We don’t have any?  This case is garbage!”  In fact, when not given the fun science-y data that jurors are accustomed to seeing on TV, they are already disappointed with the state’s case.  Being critical of the evidence is a healthy attitude.

*Lawyers will debate what the phrase “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” means until the end of civilization.  But I think it should mean one is more than 90% certain on every single element.  Frankly, I’d prefer 98%.