CSI Effect: Exploring Impact Among Mississippi Lawyers

The “CSI Effect” suggests that a growing number of jurors often have unrealistic expectations concerning the amount of forensic evidence which should be reasonably presented to convict an alleged criminal, and this misconception arises from watching heavily dramatized crime shows such as the CSI franchise. While many scholars have examined the CSI Effect, one critical perspective is often missing from the existing literature, that of the lawyers. Therefore, this project worked to explore the perspectives of both defense attorneys and prosecutors. Personal interviews were conducted to gain insight and perspective regarding the CSI Effect, whether these perspectives had impacted the way they performed, and whether any differences emerged among the two legal sides of the American legal system. While both groups believed in the existence of the CSI Effect, defense attorneys often had differing viewpoints from each other while prosecutorial responses were internally consistent. Both groups emphasized the need for increased funding of state crime laboratories and the importance of voir dire questions during jury selection to mitigate the CSI Effect. Given the limited number of participants in the current project, more examination of these perspectives is warranted for more complete understanding. Keywords: CSI, CSI Effect, prosecution, prosecutor, defense attorney, crime laboratorie

Educating for the future: teaching evidence in the technological age

Denise H. Wong considers the proposition that the teaching of evidence should now include specific education on electronic evidence, given the ubiquitous nature of electronic evidence and its effect on the law. Index words: Electronic evidence; litigation; legal education; university; modern legal practice

Justice in a Brave New World?

As science fiction has become reality, we should consider the implications of our new technologies for our system of justice. In addition to DNA, we are now regularly using cameras, geo-tracking, facial recognition software, brain scans, computers, and much more to discern and record our physical and mental surroundings. Existing technology and more we cannot yet imagine will increasingly take the place of often unreliable evidence, such as that provided by eyewitnesses. Yet, we have given far too little thought as to how these advances should impact our civil and criminal dispute resolution systems. Historically, many justice systems have emphasized the importance of finding the truth. Our new forms of technology will arguably help us discover the truth, and thereby potentially enhance justice. Upon reflection, however, it is not clear that our scientific innovations will necessarily yield greater truth, much less justice. The products of our technology will inevitably be subject to human interpretation and argument, and justice has always been about far more than truth. This Article argues that we should focus on three critically important issues as we consider how to redesign our system of justice to accommodate our new technology. First, recognizing that judges and jurors will often lack the competence to interpret scientific data, we should rely more heavily on neutral scientific experts. Second, in light of the psychology of multiple interpretations, we will want to ensure that our technological evidence is interpreted by a diverse audience. Third, the greatest contribution of our powerful new technology may be that it helps us recognize that justice involves much more than finding the truth. Even assuming we could agree on what happened in the past, alternative visions of justice influence how a community will want to deal with past events, such as through punishment, compensation, reparations, apology, or in other ways. By deemphasizing the centrality of truth, we can focus more on other important aspects of justice, including examining motivations, healing community rifts, enunciating community norms, providing procedural justice, protecting human rights, and providing cost-effective access to our dispute resolution system. Focusing on this broad array of concerns will encourage us to reform our litigation system in creative ways and also to rely more heavily on non-litigation approaches to justice

An Evaluation of English Crown Courts with and without Special Measures Implemented in Section 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act

This series of studies was the first to evaluate the effects of the Section 28 pilot study on the treatment of vulnerable child witnesses in English Crown Courts. Section 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act implemented mandatory Ground Rules Hearings, during which the judge, lawyers, and intermediary (if applicable) discussed appropriate accommodations to be made for child witnesses, following which the cross-examination could be pre-recorded. Analyses examined 43 cases that implemented the special measures (‘Section 28’ cases) and 44 cases that did not implement the special measures (‘Non-Section 28’ cases) that took place between 2012 and 2016. Analyses revealed that children in the Section 28 cases experienced less systemic delay than their counterparts. In addition, the trial preparation in the Section 28 cases was more thorough and this was associated with less risky questioning in the cross-examinations. However, younger children experienced longer delays and had fewer accommodations made for them than older children, regardless of condition. Additional analyses demonstrated that the forensic interviews replaced the evidence-in-chief in most cases almost entirely, with prosecutors asking few substantive questions. In the Section 28 cases, defense lawyers used fewer suggestive questions and asked less complex questions than Non-Section 28 defense lawyers. However, both types of lawyers still predominantly asked option-posing questions. Regardless of condition, defense lawyers asked fewer suggestive questions than their counterparts in other common-law countries and they asked younger children less complex questions. Results indicate that, although the Section 28 pilot study has not fixed all of the existing problems, it has significantly reduced systemic delay and improved the treatment of child witnesses in Crown Courts and thus should be rolled out nationally. As well, regardless of condition, English lawyers and judges seem receptive to recent special measures and appear to be effectively implementing them.Cambridge International Trus