There is a disturbing number of jurors who won't convict the guilty because the evidence isn't as blindingly solid as CSI makes it seem necessary, or dismiss blindingly solid evidence because they expect some wildly implausible CSI-like theory is likely the truth.

Umm, isn't there a CSI effect, as in judges changed their sentences, because there wasn't enough certainity in the proofs provided by real forensic experts?

Isn't that bigger impact than anything Gladwell's stories had on policies?