Reference no: EM133235188

An exercise relating to Chapter 9, The CSI Effect, Read the case study and answer the following:

"Although the debate rages on concerning the "CSI Effect," most "evidence" of this effect has been anecdotal in nature. But the fact remains that tens of millions of viewers watch television crime dramas each week, spawning a national obsession with forensic science.A fundamental question is, "Should prosecutors be permitted to question potential jurors concerning their views of forensics and to pose CSI-related questions to them-specifically, whether they would expect prosecutors to produce scientific evidence to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt?"States differ in this regard. For example, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently ruled138 that it was not an abuse of discretion for trial judges to pose CSI-related questions to potential jurors. The court gave judges wide discretion in jury selection and concluded that the trial judge had not abused his discretion and tilted the case toward the prosecution in attempting to seat jurors who were capable of deciding the case without bias and based on the evidence.Conversely, Maryland's highest court139 recently overturned two murder convictions because, during voir dire jury questioning, the trial judge asked people to stand up if they were "currently of the opinion or belief that you cannot convict a defendant without 'scientific evidence,' regardless of the other evidence in the case and regardless of the instructions that I will give you as to the law." The court, in ordering a new trial for the defendants, held that "the trial judge abused his discretion by essentially instructing the jury to convict the defendants 'on the non-scientific evidence of the case' ... suggesting that the jury's only option was to convict, regardless of whether scientific evidence was adduced."

1. Should trial judges be allowed to question potential jurors concerning their views of forensics and to pose CSI-related questions to them?

2. If you were a member of the jury, would you render a guilty verdict if there was no forensic evidence presented and yet it appeared from the evidence that the prosecutors proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt?

3. Do you believe, the lack of compelling evidence not withstanding, there does in fact exist such an effect?