[tw]

Scientific American of July 2006 adds data:

Several legal experts have argued, however, that the CSI effect may be illusory. The newspaper that quoted Atlantic City lawyer Levin also noted that Superior Court Judge Albert Garofolo said, "My initial reaction might have been 'Yes, there is a CSI effect." But I think this may be more of a suspicion than anything else. There's a feeling this could be real, but in truth I can't recall a situation where I've heard a jury say they were expecting more." ...

What appears to be the first study of the CSI effect was published in February by Kimberlianne Podlas, an attorney and assistant professor of media law and ethics at the Universtiry of North Carolina at Greensboro. Podlas concluded that the chances of, and reasoning for, acquittals were the same for frequent CSI viewers as for prospective jurors who did not watch the show - she saw no CSI effect. Several participants, however, said that a lack of forensic testing was an issue, despite the fact that physical evidence would not have resolved the hypothetical charges. Studies of real juries have been advocated, and at least five graduate students (three in the US and two in England) are preparing theses examining the effect.