More on the “CSI Effect”
I’ve been in jury trial these last few days but I’ve got some free time now. This morning my jury came back with their verdict. There were many issues in the case, but one point I drove home in cross examination and final argument was that, of the five police cars that pulled up to the scene of the crime, every one was equipped with a state-of-the-art video camera capable of recording everything that happened during the arrest, and mysteriously not one of them was turned on. The case rested squarely on the facts surrounding the arrest and it turned into a “he-said”, “she-said” contest between the defendant and his friends on the one hand, and police officers on the other. And you know who usually wins that contest.
Question: Officer, your police car is equipped with a video recorder that was capable of recording the events you’ve testified to, was it not?”
Answer: Yes it was.
Question: It’s easy to turn on isn’t it?
Answer: Yes, it is.
Question: You failed to turn it on that evening, though, didn’t you?
Answer: Well, I didn’t turn it on.
Question: And as a result, no one recorded Tony’s arrest, did they?
Answer: That’s correct.
After only 28 minutes of deliberation, the jury came back with their verdict: Not Guilty.
There were many good reasons for the verdict (e.g., my client was innocent), but any time your case rests on pitting the word of the defendant and his cohorts against the sworn testimony of multiple police officers, you’re on very thin ice. I can’t help thinking that this case illustrates a variant of the CSI Effect I’ve written about in the past. There’s really no excuse to see prosecutions failing to utilize available technology to make their case. When they fail to produce such evidence, they do so at their peril.
RP