By now just about everyone around town has heard of the recent developments at the Monroe County Crime Lab, where the lab’s director was initially placed on paid leave and then subsequently fired in the wake of a report from the State Inspector General’s Office criticizing certain practices at the lab.
I can’t think of a television show in the history of the medium has had a larger effect on the real world subject matter it is based on more than the CSI franchise. All three (is it only three?) of the shows are so popular and so widely viewed that it has become an accepted truism among the criminal practice bar that jurors are almost universally swayed by the “CSI effect,” meaning that jurors within the last 4 to 5 years have been conditioned by the shows to expect to be presented with forensic scientific evidence, such as DNA, in every case. Furthermore jurors are more likely to expect that the scientific evidence will present them with a definitive answer as to what actually happened in the case they are evaluating.
Actually I think the “CSI effect” is more subconscious than anything. Reasonable people, when asked, are universally going to tell an attorney during jury selection that they realize that CSI is just a television show and not necessarily reflective of real-world forensics, police practices and/or legal procedure. However – and I have seen it happen – jurors will sometimes emerge from the deliberation room following the verdict and ask of, or state to, the judge that their conclusions were based on unrealistic expectations of the meaning or value of the forensics (or lack thereof). That’s the “CSI Effect” in action.
Which brings us back to our lab here in Monroe County. Even that is a bit of a misnomer, to call it the Monroe County Crime Lab, when it actually also serves all of the surrounding counties as well. As a criminal lawyer, whether a prosecutor or defense attorney, I depend on that lab to produce accurate, reliable and understandable results on any case that I handle. However, I am just one lawyer among many in this area. My cases are only a few of the thousands and thousands that are processed through our local criminal courts each year. And everybody – including the personnel at the lab – understands that juries want, if not require, results on the evidence the lab analyzes. Add that volume of cases and the demands from prosecutors, defense lawyers, police and others and you can begin to understand how close to impossible it might be for our lab to be completely caught up on all the testing it is asked to do.
Now, I don’t work at the lab. I haven’t worked at the DA’s Office in seven months or so. I don’t know everything about what went on with our former lab director, so I am in no position to pass judgment on her job performance. What I can say, however, is that I am sympathetic to the dynamics of her job, which was not an easy one by any means.
I understand that John Clark has been named as interim director. He works at the lab as the director of the firearms section. I have the utmost respect for John. You will not find a more professional and competent person in his field, and I am sure he will do an outstanding job in his new role.
This has been an interesting situation to watch unfold, and I get the feeling we don’t have the full story yet. Because these developments directly affect my clients, you can be sure I will be watching closely.