Texas Wesleyan Law Review

Document Type



Part I of this Essay explores the problem of "junk science" in this country that has led to a plethora of wrongful convictions of the innocent. In this Part, I suggest that, contrary to the beliefs of many CSIwatching jurors, the state of forensics in this country is far from how it is portrayed by Hollywood. Part II then discusses my anecdotal experience with cases in which jurors, who, while seemingly unaware of the problems that have been documented in this country with junk science, have convicted defendants on little more than what many in my field know to be highly questionable forensic testimony. I ponder whether CSI-type shows have contributed to jurors' over-reliance on forensic testimony that is, in reality, often quite dubious and offer my anecdotal experience, which suggests that they have. In conclusion, I call for further research of these issues before we definitively assert that CSI-type shows damage the prosecution the most, damage innocent defendants the most, or equally impact both sides of the adversarial system.



First Page


Last Page