Mass. high court OKs questions for jurors about ‘CSI effect’

By Martin Finucane, Globe Staff

The state’s highest court has ruled that a judge was allowed to question potential jurors during jury selection about the “CSI effect” – whether they would expect prosecutors to produce scientific evidence to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Supreme Judicial Court, in an opinion written by Justice Fernande R.V. Duffly, rejected the claims by the defendant in an Essex County murder case that the questioning denied him his constitutional rights to a fair trial by an impartial jury.

The court said that while anecdotes have circulated and the media has reported on it, there is “little empirical evidence” supporting the theory that jurors who watch forensic science TV shows such as CBS-TV’s popular CSI franchise will hold prosecutors to an unreasonably high standard of proof.

But the court also said some jurisdictions allow judges to ask jurors about their views on forensic or scientific evidence. And the court noted a state appeals court decision upholding a conviction where a similar question was posed to jurors.

The high court said judges are allowed a large degree of discretion in the jury selection process and concluded that the trial judge had not abused his discretion and tilted the case toward the prosecution.

“The questions were tailored to ensure that seated jurors were capable of deciding the case without bias and based on the evidence,” the court said.

“The questions did not commit the jury to a verdict in advance and, as posed, did not have the effect of identifying and selecting jurors who were predisposed to convicting the defendant based on evidence the Commonwealth would present,” the court added.

The court also pointed out that the questions didn’t suggest to jurors that they were not allowed to consider a lack of scientific evidence when determining whether reasonable doubt existed.

At the request of prosecutors, the trial judge had asked potential jurors whether they believed “the Commonwealth is never able to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt unless it presents scientific evidence to corroborate witness testimony.” Thirty-eight people either said yes or “responded ambiguously.” Thirty-one of that 38 were excused from the jury.

The high court also rejected several other arguments made by Ramon Perez, who was convicted of first-degree murder in the slaying of Henry Guzman, whose body was found in late 2001 near a Lawrence warehouse. Prosecutors alleged that Guzman had been slain in a drug ripoff.