Author Question: State supreme courts typically use traveling panels of justices to sit, hear cases, and render ... (Read 68 times)

mikaylakyoung · **on:** Aug 25, 2018

State supreme courts typically use traveling panels of justices to sit, hear cases, and render decisions.

Indicate whether the statement is true or false

Question 2

Explain the CSI effect, and how it does and does not affect court operations and court actors.

What will be an ideal response

popopong · **Reply #1 on:** Aug 25, 2018

Answer to Question 1

FALSE

Answer to Question 2

The potential CSI effect exists when television programs focusing on criminal investigations and forensic techniques may not only be providing viewers with entertainment but also creating certain expectations about criminal cases in general, and investigations in specific. Of particular concern is whether or not such television programming may create inaccurate expectations in the minds of jurors regarding the power and use of forensic evidence. Some prosecutors and defense attorneys believe that the shows aid their opponents: prosecutors believe that juries want to see all evidence subjected to substantial forensic examination, whether warranted in a specific case or not, while defense attorneys have indicated that juries believe scientific evidence is perfect and thus trustworthy in establishing guilt. Prosecutors may also use PowerPoint and video presentations more frequently, and might take pains to explain to jurors that forensic evidence is not always collectibleor at the very least use experts to explain to jurors why they did not logically collect forensic evidence in a particular case. Attorneys and judges may well be more careful in the jury selection process. These adaptations could result in longer trials and an increased use of expert witnesses to aid the jury in understanding the presence or absence of physical evidence. Some police have reported that citizens who observe their investigatory techniques have attempted to correct the officers' actions based upon what the citizen has seen on television. Victims and their families may also question the extent and speed of forensic analysis. In sum, one study found that these televised programs have had a negative impact on the courts, but not to the extent that judges sense a need to change the manner in which their courts are administered. While judges perceived an increased demand for and distorted perception of forensic evidence due to such programs, they did not perceive an increased use of forensic evidence, that the impact required changes in the administration of the court, or that the changes are beyond their ability to remedy. The CSI effect may be, in reality, more of a nuisance than a substantial factor in criminal justice processing.