To attain the capacity to respond to the expectations of the courtroom, the government needs to equip the law enforcement agencies with the latest technology, as well as distribute resources necessary to equip the investigation agencies with the recent equipment in forensic science. These expectations also call for exemplary improvements in our nation's crime laboratories to keep pace with the increased demand for forensic analysis and minimize backlogs of evidence.
Shelton’s (2008) study further established an increased need to equip players of the courtroom drama with better ways to respond to the expectations of the Jurors in an incidence of lack of scientific evidence. The prosecutors should learn other ways to support witness statements when there is no exhibit for the purpose (Shelton, 2008). Making a distinct observation that some of these expectations are forcing the prosecutors to spend most of their time explaining to the Jurors what type of scientific evidence is necessary in a case. Prosecutors have introduced a new witness in criminal cases called the “negative evidence” witness, whose function is to explain to the Jury that investigators were unable to collect any evidence from the crime scene (Dioso-Villa, 2009).
Dioso-Villa’s (2009) argument is that “the CSI has exposed the activities of the investigators and law enforcement officers, which is what they look for at a crime scene to solve a crime.”