Americans watch about 153 hours of television every month in their homes. That’s a lot of TV.  My mom would say that is way too much television. And many of the most popular television shows are forensic and crime dramas like CSI, Law & Order, Cold Case and The Closer. Researchers at Indiana State wondered how all that TV watching might influence attitudes toward the criminal justice system.

What they found was disturbing. People who watch these television shows believe that many more real-life murders happen; that more serious crimes occur; that there are more law enforcement personnel than actually exist, and can take on a belief in a ‘mean world syndrome’ and develop a fear of victimization.

On a jury, they are what they watch (on TV). What might happen if your jurors watch crime and forensic dramas at home? Consider that for many, what they see is their reality.   What they conclude from television is the lens through which your case is viewed.

A juror might re-enact evidence on his/her own to ‘see what happens’. We’ve seen this actually happen with a juror in the Matthew P. Jaeger case (a kidnapping and aggravated battery charge) and on the more well-known Widmer (jurors and skin-drying experiments) case.  (And not just jurors experiment! Todd Willingham’s defense attorney talks about how he ‘knew’ his client was guilty based on his own experimentation in a CNN interview.) Note to self: Don’t do this at home!

Maybe your jurors watch ‘Lie to Me’ and believe they can intuit deception from fleeting micro-expressions because they watch that show frame to frame on their DVR players. These jurors can be so convinced of their superior observational skills that evidence is tossed out because they ‘saw through’ the lies attorneys put forth in court.

The list of worst possible scenarios is endless (not to mention frightening). Ask in voir dire about who watches these television shows. Ask who understands that what is on TV is a bit more advanced, while also being more simplistic, than what we can do in real life (and in court). Ask who can put “CSI” and “Lie to Me” ‘training’ aside and deliver a verdict based on the evidence. Ask who would feel that putting that ‘training’ aside would feel wrong or impossible as they deliberate.   Do they require CSI-level evidence to prove the case?  What it their HDTV requirement for reasonable doubt, or even probable cause?

In truth, depending on case facts, you may want jurors who feel that CSI levels of evidence should be brought to bear (real standards will likely fall short). The important thing is that you know who is on your jury, whether they can stop themselves from re-enacting or leaping to conclusions, and that you remind them at closing about their obligation to make decisions based on evidence presented in court (not on television).

Related posts:

1. Redux: Bye-bye CSI?
2. Propaganda, Dogmatism & Bias: Who are your jurors?
3. Bye bye CSI?
4. Better find something besides DNA & hard science to persuade the jury!
5. It’s not just jurors who are doing it

1. Trackbacks says:

   September 3, 2010 at 7:03 PM

   • Litigation PostScript. Persuasion Strategies for Litigators: November 2009