It has been argued that much of the science introduced at trial is beyond the ability of jurors to comprehend. Instead of being able to determine which tests produce valid results, the jurors are swayed by the ability of the expert to perform on the witness stand. Is there a better way to handle scientific evidence at trial? Many popular TV shows feature teams who specialize in scientific analysis of crime scene evidence and data mining. As a result, some jurors have developed unreasonable expectations that sophisticated lab results will be introduced at trial. Commentators have called this the "CSI Effect." In real life, it is difficult for a prosecutor to meet these expectations because investigators rarely have the resources available on TV, many of the tests take much longer to produce results than depicted, and some of the tests would never be admitted at trial because they are still experimental. What can the prosecution do to prevent jurors from using the fiction they watch as a basis for what to expect at trial?