Prosecutors all over the country have voiced concern that the razzle-dazzle forensics of the CSI shows have created unrealistic expectations about the power of technology to solve crime. The Maryland Court of Appeals has officially rebuffed the concern, at least for the time being. From Kenneth Gerald Stabb v. State of Maryland (PDF):
CRIMINAL LAW - JURY INSTRUCTIONS - STATE’S LACK OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE - Petitioner’s right to a fair trial by jury was violated, under the circumstances of this case, where the trial judge instructed preemptively the jury that there is “no legal requirement that the State utilize any specific investigative technique or scientific test to prove its case.” Although the language of this jury instruction is not impermissible per se, its use, where perhaps appropriate otherwise, ought to be restricted to cases where curative instructions are necessary. In this case, there was no necessity for a curative instruction, and the instruction, when given, served to relieve the State of its burden to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Court said that it "may revisit this view at such time as a proper case comes before us where it can be demonstrated by appropriate scholarly research that a 'CSI effect' has been found to exist by the relevant legal and/or scientific communities and its scope and effect can be relied upon to tailor an appropriate response through voir dire questions and/or jury instructions." The Court's holding is consistent with findings in the Washtenaw County. See "Washtenaw Study on Juror "CSI" Effect Gets National Attention."
