The occurrence of the “CSI effect” is widely discussed in scholarly resources such as “Public Understanding of Science”, for instance. By the example of the article, derived from this journal, one may see that the impact of the “SCI effect” is tracked in the minds of regular television viewers (Cole 130-146). The research, made by the author, proves that for the majority of those who watch the series the borderland between fiction and reality becomes blurred. The main goal of the study was to identify to what extent different factors had contributed to the programs’ high level of credibility and how they affected the viewers’ perception of TV reality. As Steenberg states, the CSI franchise has “solidified the now conventional iconography of popular forensic science in visual culture” (3). Eventually, the main purposes of the article were to define how the “CSI effect” had led to a distorted way of thinking and, thus, people’s wrong perception of events. The study brightly demonstrates how the “CSI effect” makes a pernicious impact on the way judges, attorneys, and regular citizens make conclusions regarding crimes. The author highlights that although, “the storylines are fiction. Their effect is real” (Cole 132). People tend to believe those police departments work exactly the way they are shown on TV. Despite the fact the program creators apply for computer graphics to more precisely reflect their vision of a particular situation (the way a bullet penetrates tissues, etc.), viewers still accept the given information as a reliable fact. This statement proves that a detailed depiction of how the crimes are being investigated and solved makes “the influence of heavy forensic television program viewership on perceptions of scientific evidence and juror decision-making” (Mancini 543). The key research questions, the author is attempting to answer, are narrowed down to two major sections: how the actual reality is becoming distorted by a mentioned effect and to what extent this fact influences the minds of regular citizens and judges in particular. Knowing that “the CSI effect does exist and may alter the trial strategies”, the researcher applies various approaches and methods of data collecting (Hayes and Levett 220). Thus, to prove the claim of Maeder and Corbett that higher frequencies of TV show viewing make viewers increase their expectations regarding evidence, the author refers to a quantitative method of data retrieving and provides tables where main statistical figures are gathered (89). These figures show that jury consultants and judges are influenced by the “CSI effect” to the degree of 90 in percentage equivalent (Cole 135). In addition to the mentioned quantitative method, the researcher also uses a qualitative approach to the data analysis. With regards to the fact that quite often “the public formed opinions not based on crime statistics, but rather how the media represented crime” the author expresses his view of the situation and tries to highlight the premises for their occurrence (Ogletree and Sarat 23). His opinion coincides with the one this review is backing. The “CSI effect” does have an influence on the way trials currently operate and the way they make decisions. Expectedly, the reasons for this fact lie in the mass media misfeed and distor