Rich, Famous, and Blameless: Are Juries Blinded by the Limelight?

The recent College Admissions Scandal has become increasingly popular in the media. Perhaps at the center of the media's attention are the celebrities involved, including Lori Loughlin and Felicity Huffman. The sting operation that uncovered the admissions scandal charged fifty people, and yet Loughlin and Huffman are most often the subject of headlines. 

When a celebrity is accused of a crime, the public is often the first to know. Media and press coverage make a spectacle of celebrity predicaments, providing the rest of the world with detailed “facts” as they surface. At the trial, potential jurors likely come into the courtroom already knowing these alleged facts having read them in the morning news. This is significant because it illustrates how pre-trial publicity can interfere with fair administration of justice by tainting the jury pool. To represent a jury of one’s peers, jurors in celebrity cases are faced with an almost impossible task of erasing from their minds information acquired about the celebrity from various channels. There are two main problems with finding impartial jurors in celebrity trials: (1) separating case specific knowledge acquired from pre-trial publicity, and (2) separating prior perceptions shaped by celebrity status.

Case-Specific Knowledge Acquired from Pre-Trial Publicity

Mock jury research shows the type of pre-trial publicity makes a difference. In his book, The Star Chamber: How Celebrities Go Free and Their Lawyers Become Famous, Eric Dubin advocates celebrities take advantage of their spot in the limelight by taking control of the information made available to the media. According to Dubin, celebrities can stand to strengthen their case by leaking case-specific information favorable to their case and unfavorable to their opponents case. While Dubin’s strategy rests on the assumption that jurors will be exposed to such pre-trial publicity, he is not entirely mistaken. Some research tends to show that pre-trial publicity does affect jurors' judgments by causing them to either be too hard on, or too soft on, celebrity defendants. Conversely, Kobe Bryant's defense lawyer shies away from the limelight, insisting that "[t]he only statements that count are made in the courtroom."

Prior Perceptions Shaped by Celebrity Status

Perhaps jurors assume that the famous and talented are either too good to behave badly, or that their victims are opportunists. One study in particular found that mock jurors who had higher fascination with celebrities were more likely to acquit celebrity defendants of murder. Alternatively, a defendant’s celebrity status may trigger an automatic disdain for reasons completely irrelevant to the specific case. For example, after reaching a verdict in the case against Martha Stewart, one of the jurors claimed it as “’a victory for the little guys who lose money in the market because of the these kinds of transactions’ – even though Ms. Stewart was not charged with insider trading itself.”

Finding a Jury for Celebrity Criminals 

In sensitive trials like this it is critical to take precautions during jury selection. Potential jurors may refuse to admit or may underestimate just how much of an impression a celebrity defendant will have on their decision-making. The goal is to find an impartial jury free from bias; and positive or negative attitudes towards celebrity defendants is just another form of juror bias. While celebrity trials harbor extensive media attention and pre-trial publicity, the underlying issues are the same as any other trial.