What is the "O.J. effect" in forensic investigations?

The "O.J. effect" refers to the phenomenon where forensic evidence and the credibility of the scientists presenting that evidence are called into question, particularly in high-profile cases. This term originated from the O.J. Simpson murder trial, where the defense effectively challenged the reliability of forensic evidence and the qualifications of the forensic experts involved.

This situation highlighted how forensic evidence could be discredited amid intense media scrutiny and public interest, leading to a general skepticism about forensic science itself. As a result, the "O.J. effect" illustrates the potential vulnerability of forensic evidence in the courtroom, especially when a strong defense strategy aggressively dismantles the prosecution's case.

In contrast, the other options do not accurately capture the essence of the "O.J. effect." Improving the chain of evidence, enhancing public trust, or increasing the number of expert witnesses do not directly relate to the impact and implications of the discrediting of forensic evidence and expert witnesses that were so prominent during the O.J. Simpson trial.