Appellate Law

Today's prosecutorial whining about the BS CSI effect

By S. COTUS

CrimProfBlog points to this story in which Miami prosecutor Michael Von Zamft tries to justify his failure to obtain a conviction by blaming the jurors.  Other prosecutors would have either admitted their incompetence, or say simply that the jury spoke.  Not Von Zamft.  He blames the ?CSI effect.? Von Zamft is a whiner who simply failed to adequately present his case.  But rather than say, ?we respect the jury? he blames a TV show for his failure. 

In Von Zamft's world the following discussion takes place:

Lawyer: Good news!

Client: What?

Lawyer: We lost your jury trial. You will need to start thinking about bankruptcy, but most of the damages are not dischargable.  Your children might need to be sold for medical research.

Client: Can't we appeal?

Lawyer: Not really. This was mostly on the facts. The jury simply didn't believe the case I put on.  Our experts seemed like liars.  All of them make their living testifying in court.

Client: Oh, okay. It was the CSI effect. I understand. If only more children were available for medical research.

Lawyer:  Really?

Client:  Yes.  You are not a total douche.  I blame the TV Show "Stella."

The story also prattles on about what how "observers" (really the cheering section for the alleged "victim") thought that some guy would get convicted.

And really, does it matter what an ?observer? thinks?  What matters is what the jury thought, and the jury didn't think the state did a good enough job.  These observers just want to send another person to jail, but the framers were decided to put these decisions in the hands of the jury.  If they want, they can amend the constitution, but the people have spoken. 

Full post as published by Appellate Law and Practice on September 01, 2008 (boomark / email).