See the CNN story here.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
CSI – I hate the show. A pile of fictitious forensic junk that has been a burden to innocence work since its inception.
Prosecutors complain about it because they think it instills in the minds of jurors that there needs to be fancy, technical forensic evidence in order to convict a defendant. Maybe so, and if so, this might possibly result in a jury finding a defendant innocent who is actually guilty.
But there is a much more pernicious “other edge” to that sword. My view has always been that it instills in the minds of jurors that fancy, technical, forensic evidence is infallible, even though it may be scientific garbage. And this can, and does, result in a jury finding a defendant guilty who is actually innocent.
CSI, RIP. (No, not really.)
Wrongful Convictions Blog 
all it takes is an idiot who believes a earning a degree isn’t important as long as he has “all this experience”
Good riddance to CSI = junk science!
Juries should only be shown evidence which is scientifically valid. There are far too many incompetent non-experts testifying.
Detective conan is much better.