Forensic Science International

Review

Crime scene investigation (as seen on TV)

Evan W. Durnal

*

University of Central Missouri, Criminal Justice Department, P.O. Box 800, Warrensburg, MO 64093, United States

Contents

1. CSI effect in the courtroom . . . 2

1.1. Jurors . . . 2

1.2. Prosecutors . . . 2

1.3. Defense attorneys . . . 3

1.4. Judges . . . 3

2. CSI effect on criminals . . . 3

3. CSI effect on law enforcement . . . 4

4. CSI effect on academia. . . 4

5. Common CSI myths . . . 4

5.1. Capabilities . . . 4

5.2. Roles and responsibilities . . . 4

5.3. Evidence . . . 5

5.4. Schedule . . . 5

6. Conclusion . . . 5

References . . . 5

Unfortunately the described utopia is far from the case. As recently as December 8th, 2008, citing a report issued by the FBI, the Associated Press announced that homicide clearance rates in the United States (the ratio of number of homicides known to be committed to the number of homicides solved) have dropped nearly 30% to 63% from 91% in 1963. Of course this is a reflection of many things including a

population explosion, street, drug, and gang-related homicides, and many other hard-to-trace murders. However, one would like to believe that with the advances in biometrics; including identification technologies ranging from fingerprints to DNA and iris recognition, accompanied by the fact that cameras, phones, and videos are everywhere that criminals would not have a chance. Wrong. Crime remains an unfortunate, yet integrated part of American culture, not as hopelessly interwoven as the media would have us believe, but regardless, a part of life (or at least the evening news).

The media today has influenced and interacted with crime, criminals, and the criminal justice system in a manner that is so A R T I C L E I N F O

Article history:

Received 2 September 2009 Accepted 9 February 2010 Available online 12 March 2010 Keywords:

CSI effect Jurisprudence Television crime drama Popular culture

A B S T R A C T

A mysterious green ooze is injected into a brightly illuminated and humming machine; 10 s later, a printout containing a complete biography of the substance is at the fingertips of an attractive young investigator who exclaims ‘‘we found it!’’ We have all seen this event occur countless times on any and all of the threeCSI dramas, Cold Cases,Crossing Jordans, and many more. With this new style of ‘‘infotainment’’ (Surette, 2007[13]), comes an increasingly blurred line between the hard facts of reality and the soft, quick solutions of entertainment. With these advances in technology, how can crime rates be anything but plummeting as would-be criminals cringe at the idea of leaving the smallest speck of themselves at a crime scene? Surely there are very few serious crimes that go unpunished in today’s world of high-tech, fast-paced gadgetry. Science and technology have come a great distance since Sir Arthur Conan Doyle first described the first famous forensic scientist (Sherlock Holmes), but still have light-years to go.

ß2010 Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.

* Correspondence address: 6310 Beverly Dr., Mission, KS 66202, United States. Tel.: +1 785 979 8735.

E-mail address:[email protected].

Contents lists available atScienceDirect

Forensic Science International

0379-0738/$ – see front matterß2010 Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2010.02.015

complex that entire careers are spent trying to separate and identify which breeds which. The media would also have us believe that with the technology currently available, most crimes can be easily solved. In recent years, the success of TV shows such asCSI,NCIS,Criminal Minds, and the numerous other scientifically based crime-solvers has given the public an extremely skewed view of the resources available to law enforcement personnel, dramatically increased the expectations of would-be jurors, judges, and attorneys, given criminals insight as to what and how ‘‘not to do’’ things, as well as initiate and perpetuate numerous basic myths about the reality and limitations of forensic science. These shows have had so much success that a new term was coined based on the title of the most popular of them all; ‘‘The CSI Effect’’[4]. This term has become commonplace in respected news arenas such as CNN, National Geographic, USA Today, CBS News, US News and World Report, and many others[4]. Criminal drama television shows have become so prevalent in popular culture today that the San Diego Tribune reported that ‘‘. . .during one week in September 2005, there were 63 homicides on forensic television shows during prime time viewing hours [7:00 pm to 10:00 pm] on the six broadcast networks.’’[9].

It is beyond the scope of this text to conduct an original study, but it will delve into each of the aforementioned areas of the CSI effect, exposing some of the more predominant, damaging, and also valuable lessons that the media has brought into our everyday lives through the production and popularity of criminal forensic television.

1. CSI effect in the courtroom

1.1. Jurors

The primary and initial coining of the phrase ‘‘CSI Effect’’ originated as a description of an unknown and uncharacterized phenomenon that the court system was faced with. Nearly all definitions of the effect stem from and refer to the impact that CSI and related shows have on the ability of trial juries to objectively hear testimony and make decisions without biasing those decisions on information obtained outside the courtroom proceed-ings. Robbers[9]describes it as ‘‘. . .the phenomenon in which jurors hold unrealistic expectations of forensic evidence and investigation techniques, and have an increased interest in the discipline of forensic science. . .’’. Numerous instances of the CSI effect regarding jury members have been identified in courtrooms across the nation. Stevens [12] does an excellent job of summarizing a few of these incidents:

Phoenix Arizona: Jurors in a murder trial noticed that a bloody coat introduced as evidence had not been tested for DNA. They alerted the judge. The tests were not needed because the defendant had acknowledged being at the murder scene. The judge decided that TV had taught jurors about DNA tests, but not enough about when to use them.

Richmond Virginia: Jurors in a murder trial asked the judged whether a cigarette butt found during the investigation could be tested for links to the defendant. Defence[sic]attorneys had ordered DNA tests but had not introduced them into evidence. The jury’s hunch was correct – the tests exonerated the defendant, and the jury acquitted him.

Wilmington Delaware: Federal researchers studying how juries evaluate scientific evidence staged dozens of simulated trials. At one point, a juror struggling with especially complicated DNA evidence lamented that such problems never come up on‘CSI’.

Obviously these represent only a fraction of the instances in which previous ‘‘knowledge’’ gained by jurors from television had predetermined their views of the important, possible, and

applicable tests, procedures, and therefore altered their expecta-tions. The true number of times that these types of views have biased or at least influenced juror decisions can never be quantified. One study attempting to quantify the effect ended finding a difference between jurors that commonly viewed criminal drama programming and jurors whom did not, but the difference was not large enough to be statistically significant. Part of the results of this survey done in Washtenaw County, Michigan was grouped by viewing habits. As a result of this grouping, it was found that ‘‘watching CSI and related programs may marginally increase the expectation of scientific evidence in certain types of cases.’’[11]. These certain types of cases were those more serious crimes of rape, murder, or some other type of sexual misconduct. In these cases, 26.5% of test subjects would not convict a person without some type of scientific evidence[2]. Another study done using mock trials given to students at Arizona State University also found a non-statistically significant difference. In one particular case, 29% of non-CSI viewers said they would convict, whereas only 18% of CSI viewers would have convicted the defendant[10].

Jurors also may tend to think that they have a solid and true understanding of the nature and type of forensic evidence presented to them by attorneys. It should be noted that the science behind many forensic methods has taken years to develop, some of which is admittedly still lagging in validation studies, but is nevertheless an extremely complex process that simply cannot be learned nor understood by watching television, no matter how true-to-fact the show is. On the other side of the argument, some researchers contend that it is not an ignorant and naı¨ve juror that has been tainted; it is a simple general mistrust of juries and the current criminal justice system. It is true that to date, no hard empirical study has been conducted that positively proves that television shows like CSI have a distinguished effect on juror’s decisions[2], but many resembling those mentioned above have provided some evidence to the fact that even though currently unquantifiable, the effect that these type of television shows have on potential jurors can be far-reaching and unavoidable. 1.2. Prosecutors

Juries are not the only courtroom entity that this effect has reached. Prosecutor’s tactics, approaches and entire cases have been altered by this type of phenomena. Prosecutors can now be burdened as a result of the CSI effect ‘‘. . . creating greater expectations about forensic science that cannot be delivered.’’ [10]. Prosecutors are faced with questioning witnesses and convincing newly ‘‘informed’’ jurors of the appropriate applica-tions of the techniques and methods of identification they have come to see so often on their favorite shows. On top of having to not only sift through and present the evidence at hand, assistant district attorneys across the nation are now finding themselves spending hours explaining to a jury why a particular piece of evidence is not present or does not apply. Again, Stevens [12] supplies a good synopsis of a few examples:

Arizona, Illinois, and California: Prosecutors now use ‘negative evidence witnesses’attempting to assure jurors that it is not unusual for real crime science investigators to fail finding DNA, fingerprints, and other evidence at crime scenes.

Dakota County, Minnesota: Prosecutors were told by the jury that they were disappointed in the fact that a computerized reenactment had not been constructed.

Hennepin County, Minnesota: Prosecutors are now explaining to potential jurors that real life is not like a television show. For instance, substantial evidence towards conviction does not neces-sarily mean DNA evidence. Because of‘CSI’shows, some prosecutors contend that more jurors believe every crime scene yields forensic

evidence that offers conclusive scientific proof of innocence or guilt, almost instantly.

Essentially, prosecutors are now not only faced with presenting and explaining the evidence that exists, they now also have to explain why certain evidence does not exist or is not applicable to the situation. As a result, the average trial length is getting longer, and more and more prosecutors are faced with acquittals in what used to be routine cases.

1.3. Defense attorneys

Of course, if prosecutors are faced with new challenges, the men and women they argue against in court every day are faced with the opposite, but same challenges. Defense Attorneys can be burdened as a result of the CSI effect ‘‘creating exaggerated faith in the capabilities and reliability of the forensic sciences.’’[10]. Around the country, defense attorneys are now faced with an important new responsibility; to educate jurors on the true nature of forensic science, and that many, if not most of the techniques and practices used to match tissue, fiber, and numerous other types of evidence, by nature absolutely cannot ever be 100% definitive. Investigators in shows like CSI always use terms such as ‘‘match’’ and ‘‘confirmed’’, when in reality a forensic scientist will nearly always use terms such as ‘‘similar’’, ‘‘could have come from’’, or ‘‘is associated with’’[14].

Unfortunately, there have been numerous situations in which forensic scientists employing personal motives have falsified, exaggerated, and in general over-extended the normal bounds that many of their tests offer. Defense attorneys, while they must continue to believe that all scientists are ethical and moral pillars, must also keep in mind that if some piece of evidence, test or assumption seems ‘‘too good to be true’’ for the prosecution, then there may be a chance that it is. In many cases, it turns out to be seemingly little nuances such as these that can completely destroy or support defense attorney’s case and not the knowledge and skill of cross-examination. In a study done at Marymount University by Robbers[9], (45) jurisdictions including 97 defense attorneys were surveyed and the following statistics were tabulated regarding the views of defense attorneys along with the accompanying quotes: 47% felt they were forced to spend more time weeding through potential jurors during voir dire. One defense attorney wrote: ‘‘Much more time is spent in voir dire, and this affects both the prosecution and the defense. I try to weed jurors out who may be overly influenced by these shows. Although for a defense attorney, a juror who is very tuned into forensic shows may be more likely to dismiss a case because forensic evidence is lacking, he or she could also convict based on a piece of forensic evidence irrelevant to the case because jurors think forensic evidence is error proof.’’ 66% felt they spent additional time discussing forensic evidence.

Another defense attorney had this comment: ‘‘I spend far more time at trials explaining the type of evidence on CSI shows is not realistic in most cases. . .Regardless of what I say, jurors still seem to think there should be more forensic evidence, and when there is some, they see it as infallible.’’

62% felt that juries had an unreasonable expectation of forensic evidence/police.

40% felt that they had been involved in cases in which forensic evidence was presented but was entirely irrelevant to the proceedings.

It is however worth noting that defense attorneys can also benefit from the CSI effect. Many attorneys have noted that ‘‘. . .CSI projects the image that all cases are solvable by highly technical science, and if you offer less than that, it is viewed as reasonable doubt.’’[3].

1.4. Judges

It would be remiss not to comment on the implications of the CSI effect as they pertain to judges. As the presiding authority in each and every courtroom in America, judges have been given the great burden of ensuring that justice is fair, balanced, and that the letter of the law is followed. It is therefore obvious that judges would be extremely frustrated by the presence of such a potentially dramatic biasing effect. In most cases, the judges readily admit they spend more time ensuring that jurors understand the limitations of the forensic evidence being presented. Judge’s instructions to juries have unfortunately already become more of a technicality than a true setting of limitations. And prior studies have shown that instructions to juries to ignore stimuli external to the trial are ineffective[9]. The same study presented above also surveyed 89 judges and the findings were consistent with the many other views of courtroom officials:

46% felt that forensic evidence that was irrelevant to the case was presented.

58% felt that more time had been spent in voir dire. One judge wrote: ‘‘I now give specific instructions in every criminal case that jurors should not expect the type of forensic evidence they see on television show and often I have to go through the evidence with the jury to make certain they are not holding trial evidence to television standards.’’

69% felt that jurors had an unreasonable expectation of forensic evidence.

Judges may eventually be the persons called upon to help quench the unreasonable and demanding beliefs of juries. As the presiding officer of the courtroom, judges have the responsibility to identify and decide how to handle any evidence they see as misleading. It is therefore imperative that judges across the country become much more educated in the field of forensic science in order to provide a solid foundation on which they can base judgments and recognize when forensic testimony has overstepped its bounds.

2. CSI effect on criminals

It is no secret that television shows such as CSI are watched by everyone. Unfortunately ‘‘everyone’’ includes would-be and will-be perpetrators of serious crimes. Many people have contended that perhaps an even more serious aspect of the CSI effect is the knowledge that potential and convicted criminals can obtain by watching these shows. Even with the often times unrealistic and stretched technology, most of the science in these shows is at least based on a real technique that has worked or could potentially work in the future. For example, one crime scene investigator notes the fact that ‘‘. . .it [used to be] virtually unheard of for a killer to use bleach to clean up a bloody mess. . . Today the use of bleach, which destroys DNA, is not unusual in a planned homicide.’’[12]. Numerous law enforce-ment officials have openly stated that they believe shows such as CSI have ‘‘educated potential killers even more.’’ (Captain Ray Peavy, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department). Would-be criminals are now using gloves to avoid leaving fingerprints, using mechanical means such as tape to close envelopes (in order to avoid leaving DNA), realizing that fire does not actually destroy everything, and utilizing other techniques to frustrate common forensic applications. The smarter the criminals become, the more and more investigators and attorneys must dig in order to find that tiniest shred of evidence that may make or break their case.

3. CSI effect on law enforcement

Outside of the courtroom, some of the individuals who have experienced the CSI effect the most are law enforcement personnel. Undue expectations have been placed on police, investigators, and laboratory workers. The police, alongside actual crime scene investigators and evidence technicians, are now finding themselves gathering more pieces of physical evidence than they had ever dreamed necessary[6]. What comes along with this gathering of more evidence is the problem of keeping track of all of it and having the storage capability (namely space) to handle the vast amounts of evidence coming into current facilities. It is not as easy as finding some empty warehouse either. Many types of samples, specifically DNA, must be kept refrigerated in order to maintain the integrity of the sample. In the worst cases, evidence may be completely ignored or left behind simply because there is not any room to store it properly[8]. In a 2006 study, 61% of law enforcement agencies surveyed indicated they had insufficient storage capacity, especially at it relates to DNA evidence[8]. In addition, large databases containing the case numbers, evidence ID numbers, and locations of each item can be costly to keep up to date when literally hundreds of pieces of evidence come pouring in every day. The DNA backlog of this country has become a rather well known problem and even congress has gotten involved in efforts to allocate funds to government laboratories in an attempt to help alleviate the size of the backlog. Entire sections have been created in some larger agencies that focus entirely on processing ‘‘cold case’’ DNA evidence that was not possible at the time of the initial investigation.

4. CSI effect on academia

In addition to the logistic problems now faced, educators are finding that they must completely change the way they teach forensic science. It has been documented that as a result of CSI-type shows, the number of students interested in forensic science has greatly increased[1]. Students who are new to the sciences see the quick, simple tests done on television and think ‘hey I could do that.’ They do not realize the hundreds of hours of training, the countless hours of sample preparation, and the immense load of data analysis that truly goes into being able to have that ‘‘ah ha!!’’ moment. Teachers of forensic science are now forced to create situations in which two pieces of physical evidence are perhaps contradictory. What should a scientist do in that situation? What about evidence that comes back as inconclusive? Should it be completely thrown away or explained as it is? Law enforcement personnel have been given the impossible task of creating a reality from the expectations put forth by Hollywood. They must attempt to find DNA, fingerprints, or a stray hair at every scene, and that is purely impossible and absurd to expect.

As stated in the previous paragraph, more and more students and professionals are becoming interested in forensic science as a profession. This is one positive aspect of the CSI effect. As juries, judges, attorneys, and police expect and gather more and more evidence, more and more scientists are needed across the country. The CSI effect also provides America with a completely new and fresh view of scientists. Most people think of the older white-male with messed-up hair wearing a white lab coat in some secluded laboratory 24 h a day. Shows like CSI have given forensic science a type of ‘‘sexiness’’ that was never before imagined. Kevin Finneran, offered these words, ‘‘. . .It [CSI] will stimulate youthful interest in forensic science. It promotes the virtues of care, skeptical empiricism, and honesty.’’ [5]. Perhaps investigative personnel can use this type of positive reinforcement to improve their public image, increase their repore with the public, and become a more integrated part of the investigations as a whole. Only time will tell.

5. Common CSI myths

Perhaps the single largest gripe that many criminal justice officials have about shows such as CSI is the fact that they create and thus perpetuate a vast number of forensic science myths. It is, in turn, these myths that propagate through jurors, judges, and attorneys, stopping only at those persons who have studied and know the techniques and can explain the limits of each. According to Schweitzer, one forensic scientist estimates that 40% of the science on CSI does not exist. These shows ‘‘portray scientific techniques that are experimental, controversial, or nonexistent.’’ [2]. There are four primary areas in which shows such as CSI can create myths: the capabilities of a given test or analytical method, the actual amount of evidence normally found at a crime scene, the time frame in which various techniques and tests can occur, and the actual roles and responsibilities of the various members of an investigative team.

5.1. Capabilities

With regard to the capabilities and resources available to the average forensic lab, it nearly always comes down to some piece of complex instrumentation, or a search database or specific software. As mentioned in the introduction, no analytical chemist in their right mind would ever put a concentrated, pigmented, viscous substance straight into a GC/MS (Gas Chromatography/ Mass Spectrometry) system. These types of systems, while extremely important and very real, require a great deal of sample pre-treatment and cleanup prior to being injected into the instrument and analyzed. GC/MS systems are probably the most highly touted and widely used instruments, and they can provide an incredible amount of information about an unknown substance, but they most certainly do not spit out a nice little printout stating the chemical found, the likely source, lot number, and date of manufacture. GC/MS analysis runs usually take anywhere from 15 min to hours, not to mention the amount of data work-up involved prior to deciding on a ‘‘hit’’. In addition, many scholars have noted that perhaps one of the most unrealistic aspects present in television crime dramas is that omniscient database[1] that can search any kind of product ranging from tires, cars, and tools to makeup, coffee, and soil samples. While there are databases such as CODIS (Combined DNA Index System) and AFIS (Automated Fingerprint Identification System), these databases are limited to information entered into them by law enforcement. There is no database currently kept that makes the type of adhesive used on various types of shoes searchable. It simply does not exist in that form.

5.2. Roles and responsibilities

Another large myth associated with the CSI effect is the fact that as seen on television, the crime scene investigators (CSIs) are present from the moment a crime is found to gather evidence, question witnesses, process the evidence, arrest suspects, and testify in the trial. In real life, CSIs are simply that – personnel that have been trained specifically to respond to the scene of a crime and gather evidence. In most labs, completely different staff are back at the actual crime lab processing evidence and analyzing samples. On top of that, a third set of staff (detectives) are out and about questioning witnesses, bringing suspects in, and so on. In fact, except in rare cases, most forensic scientists never visit crime scenes at all[14]. It is obvious that CSIs as seen on television are truly an ‘‘amalgam of police officer, detective, and forensic scientist.’’[6]. Each one of these individual duties is far more in-depth and different from the others and each requires focused training and education. In addition to the morphing of police,

detective, and forensic scientist, television shows put forth the expectation that each scientist is well versed in any and all techniques they may need to employ. In reality, forensic scientists themselves are further divided into disciplines which concentrate on DNA, firearms, trace evidence, illegal and controlled substances, and so on. True crime labs want their staff to be as experienced with one specific genre of forensics as possible. Of course overlap and crosstraining exist, but most of the time a scientist will concentrate on one particular aspect of the evidence found. 5.3. Evidence

It is true that science and technology today have made incredible leaps toward the ability to identify unknown perpe-trators. It is not necessarily an over abundance of physical evidence that has given the science this ability. Shows such as CSI put forth a perception that there is an ample amount of evidence left behind at every major crime scene and it is simply up to the scientist to find it [7]. If only this were the case. As criminals get more and more educated about investigative and scientific techniques (part of the CSI effect itself), they leave less and less evidence. Sure they may leave a fingerprint instead of DNA, or a hair instead of a fingerprint, but the fact remains that criminals are attempting to clean up after themselves more and more, making it harder for evidence technicians to find that ever so important shred of fiber. It is true that physical evidence itself cannot lie. It is what it is; it is up to human interpretation to determine what that piece of evidence is saying. Often times, scientists are presented with two independent pieces of physical evidence that are contradictory to one another. Which one is correct? They both are. The interpretation of one of the pieces is perhaps incorrect, or possibly the theory being investigated is flawed. Physical evidence today remains perhaps one of the more paramount pieces of our trial system. It is hard for a defense attorney to dispute a blood stain or a knife, but the interpretation of the circumstances surrounding the use of or location of those things that a defense attorney can readily argue. Those types of evidence just cannot be expected to be present in all cases.

5.4. Schedule

The final myth that is portrayed on television is the timing and schedule that is presented. Everyone can recognize that crimes are not solved in 45 min, but unfortunately many people come to believe that a DNA screen can be done in a few minutes, or that a search in a database takes a few seconds. Since extremely small amounts of DNA are found at crime scenes, they must undergo a process called polymerase chain reaction (PCR). While the automa-tion of this process has greatly reduced the time it takes to copy enough DNA to be able to compare samples, it is most definitely not

accomplished in a matter of minutes. Chemical identification techniques are an area that also takes time. GC/MS analytical techniques take dozens of minutes, not 5, chemical extractions and preparations are often completed overnight, biological material cannot be incubated and propagated within a single work day, the list goes on and on. Good science can be extremely tedious and takes a great deal of time. It is paramount that the correct conclusion is reached, regardless of the time it takes.

6. Conclusion

The CSI effect, as presented today is a far-reaching phenomenon in our criminal justice system. It both positively and negatively affects nearly all parts and pieces of the criminal process beginning with the time a crime is discovered to the day a suspect is sentenced. It is not the fault of the media that these types of effects occur. At no time has CBS or NBC, or ABC purported these television dramas to be a 100% accurate reflection of true life crime labs. It is in fact our society that likes to envision that sexy, smart, omniscient person that will be working on our side, should some false accusations arise. The CSI effect is very real. It may not influence every juror one way or another, but it most certainly has influence on the criminal justice system as a whole.

References

[1] E. Bergslien, Teaching to avoid the ‘‘CSI Effect’’, Chemical Education Today 83 (5) (2006) 690–691.

[2] W. Brickell, Is it the CSI effect or do we just distrust juries? Criminal Justice 23 (2) (2008) 10–18.

[3] G. Cavender, S.K. Deutsch, CSI and moral authority: the police and science, Crime Media Culture 3 (1) (2007) 67–81.

[4] K. Dowler, T. Fleming, S. Muzzatti, Constructing crime: media, crime, and popular culture, Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice 48 (6) (2006) 837– 850.

[5] K. Finneran, Prime time science, Issues in Science and Technology 20 (1) (2003) 23.

[6] M.M. Houck, CSI: reality, Scientific American 295 (1) (2006) 84–89.

[7] J. McKay. Forensic evidence demands rise as TV crime dramas influence juries, 2008.http://www.govtech.com/gt/print_article.php?id=260194.

[8] T.C. Pratt, et al., This isn’t CSI: estimating the national backlog of forensic DNA cases and the barriers associated with case processing, Criminal Justice Policy Review 17 (1) (2006) 32–47.

[9] M.L.P. Robbers, Blinded by science: the social construction of reality in forensic television shows and its effect on criminal jury trials, Criminal Justice Policy Review 19 (1) (2008) 84–102.

[10] N.J. Schwitzer, S. Michael, The CSI effect: popular fiction about forensic science affects the public’s expectations about real forensic science, 47 Jurimetrics Journal (2007) 357–364.

[11] D.E. Shelton, et al., Expectations and demands concerning scientific evidence: does the ‘‘CSI Effect’’ exist, Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law (2006) 331.

[12] D.J. Stevens, Forensic science, wrongful convictions, and American prosecutor discretion, The Howard Journal 47 (1) (2008) 31–51.

[13] R. Surette, Media, Crime, and Criminal Justice: Images and Realities, 3rd ed., Thomson-Wadsworth, Belmont, CA, 2007.