"Anti-CSI effect" jury instruction leads to reversal of burglary conviction

April 16, 2014

In a criminal trial, the prosecution must prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If something happens during a trial which appears to change this required burden of proof, a defendant's conviction must be reversed.

The Maryland Court of Appeals wrestled with this issue in a burglary case, where a jury instruction was given--inspired, in part, by a popular television show.

An alleged burglary . . . with no scientific evidence?

In the case of Robinson v. State, police officers were called to a scene, where the defendant and another man were detained on suspicion of burglary. Allegedly, someone had tried to break into an apartment building in Montgomery County, Maryland, but had been unsuccessful. The suspects then allegedly crossed Route 355, broke into a second building, and tried unsuccessfully to enter an apartment within that building. When police arrived, the defendant and the other man were leaving the area.

During the trial, defense counsel asked the officers whether casting for tool mark impressions, indicating an attempted forced entry, or any fingerprints or DNA testing had been completed, and the officers admitted such tests had not been performed. In his opening statement, the defense counsel had also noted the prosecution had no scientific evidence such as fingerprints or DNA from the scene.

At the close of the trial, the judge offered an instruction to the jury which, in part, stated that there was no legal obligation in Maryland that the prosecution use any particular investigative technique or scientific test to prove its case. The defendant objected to this instruction, but the jury convicted him of conspiracy to commit first-degree burglary. The defendant appealed this result.

Was giving the jury instruction an error?

The Maryland Court of Appeals noted that this jury instruction existed to counteract what has been referred to as the "CSI effect"--that is, to deal with the heightened expectations of jurors for scientific evidence in light of many popular forensic television shows. However, legal and empirical proof of the existence of such an effect was still lacking.

The prosecution argued that the use of the jury instruction in this case was appropriate, to counteract the defense counsel's comments during the proceedings regarding the lack of scientific evidence. However, while counsel did refer to fingerprints and DNA, a mere reference to the lack of evidence did not trigger the need for an "anti-CSI effect" jury instruction.

The defense merely pointed out what procedures were available to the police but not used. The comments did not misstate the law or the burden of proof the prosecution had to meet and did not insinuate that the prosecution was obligated to perform the tests.

Thus, the trial judge erred in giving the jury instruction, effectively relieving the prosecution of the burden to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in the criminal proceedings. The defendant's conviction was reversed and remanded to the lower court for a new trial.

Unwavering protection of your rights

Whether you are accused of burglary, theft or any other crime, the prosecution must meet its burden of proof to convict you. Considering the serious implications of a criminal charge, it is crucial that you seek an experienced criminal defense attorney to represent you, who will take an unwavering approach to protecting your rights and freedom.

Article provided by Saller & Bishop
Visit us at www.sblawmd.com/