374 Part 4 Public Speaking
and supporting material are connected. They also alert your audience that you
will be making a point. Consider the following examples of transitions:c “I’ve just described some of the amazing activities you can enjoy in our
National Parks, so let me tell you about two parks that you can visit within a
three-hour drive of our campus.”
c “In addition to the environmental benefits of riding your bike to school,
there are some fantastic financial and health benefits that you can enjoy.”Notice how the transitions in both examples also serve to alert your audience
that you will be making a point that you want them to remember. Transitions
are, therefore, essential to making your points clear and easy to follow.❶ Do you watch police
procedurals like CSI?
How realistic do you think
they are? Does popular
culture have an impact on
how individuals perceive
evidence or detective
work? Do you think you
would be a more sophisti-
cated juror than someone
who doesn’t watch such
shows?
❷ If you were on a jury in
a criminal trial, what would
your expectations for evi-
dence be? Would you be
willing to convict someone
based on a fiber sample,
even if the expert witness
described it as “similar”
rather than “a match”?
➌ Do you think that
shows like CSI have an
ethical responsibility to
depict forensic science
more realistically? Or is it
the audience’s responsibil-
ity to separate entertain-
ment from reality?Evidence, Popular Culture, and the “CSI Effect”
“We’ve got a match.” If you’ve ever watched CSI or any of its several spin-
offs, you know that those words are usually the clincher in a comparison of
evidence from the murder scene to something belonging to a suspect—be
it DNA, carpet fibers, or bullets. The popular procedural drama is based on
the premise that stalwart and brilliant teams of forensic scientists can and
will work tirelessly to find and present evidence that indisputably solves
crimes.
In fact, most of the evidence presented by the show’s crime scene inves-
tigators is far from indisputable, and the show’s portrayal of forensic science
is sometimes closer to science fiction than science fact. Fiber evidence, for
example, can be examined for possible connections, but no scientist would
be able to testify under oath that a specific fiber came from a specific vehicle.
Only DNA evidence really comes close to what most scientists would con-
sider mathematical certainty (Toobin, 2007). The show also misleads juries
about the technology available to prosecutors—much of the technology
shown is beyond the reach of most departments or simply does not exist—as
well as the time frame for obtaining results (Toobin, 2007). Mike Murphy, the
Las Vegas coroner whose lab was the inspiration for the original CSI show,
explains that “people expect us to have DNA back in 20 minutes or that we’re
supposed to solve a crime in 60 minutes with three commercials. It doesn’t
happen that way” (Rath, 2011).
Some legal scholars worry that the popularity of shows like CSI may bias
juries in several ways. There is a possibility that jurors who follow the shows
believe they have developed some level of expertise about forensic evidence
or, at the very least, some expectation that the kinds of evidence presented
on CSI will be available for every case, a theory that has become known as
the “CSI effect.” Although there is no evidence that watching such programs
has any impact on trial outcomes, there are some indications that watching
these shows may influence the way jurors perceive the quality of police work
in investigations as well as their behavior during deliberations (Rath, 2011;
Thomas, 2006).THINK
ABOUT
THISCOMMUNICATIONACROSSCULTURES