Every week more than 60 million Americans turn on their televisions to tune into the popular crime investigation drama CSI: Crime Scene Investigation or one of its countless spin-offs, which have become increasingly popular among the Americans public (Shelton, n.d.). The show has been a top-rated drama since it first aired in 2001, has received several Emmy nominations, and many have even said that it has led to a notable increase in college students studying forensic science. Recently, however, despite its many accomplishments, several newspaper and magazine articles have begun to warn about the impact the show's influence is having on our criminal justice system; they referred to the phenomenon as the CSI effect. Max Houck, director of the Forensic Science Initiative at West Virginia University, explains the CSI effect as “basically the perception of the near-infallibility of forensic science in response to the television show” (Podlas, 2010, p. 99). The concern among criminal justice experts and prosecutors is that the so-called CSI effect creates unrealistic expectations that every case must be solved with high-tech forensic tests, which they say have a significant impact on jurors' decision-making. Exposure to the dramatized and fictional depiction of crime solving depicted by these television programs had a significant impact on the viewer's conception of reality, which negatively altered jurors' expectations and influenced jury verdicts. in the criminal justice system, it is important to understand how the CSI effect operates. The relationship between entertainment programs and viewers' beliefs is based on media cultivation theory. Cultivation theory... at the center of the paper... more than twelve million people tune in to watch CSI (Shelton, n.d.), and with science and technology continuing to evolve so rapidly, we will continue to see a substantial influence on American criminal justice through their impact on potential juror expectations. Our criminal justice system should try to adapt to these changes as it should fight them, the way the system is set up, jurors' verdicts are expected to reflect the values ​​of our society. With these values ​​will change, and the jury's verdict will reflect those changes in popular culture. To adapt to such changes, we must invest in funding and training law enforcement to collect and analyze scientific evidence. As we adapt to these changes, it is critical that the jury is carefully educated on the nature of such evidence and appropriately screened by a Voir Dire process to identify bias..