HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017347.jpg

4.2.12
WC: 191694

Chapter 15: The changing impact of the media on the law

Criminal trials involving life and death, such as the O.J. Simpson case, or rape, such as the Mike Tyson cases, always generate massive media coverage, especially when famous people are in the dock. Some civil trials, especially those with allegations of sexual misconduct, are also widely covered. In this chapter, I focus on two such cases—both quasi-criminal in nature, both involving allegations of improper sexual relations—that reflect the changing impact of the media on our legal process. I also relate my involvement in other high profile cases in which celebrities and public figures have become the focus of media attention. Based on these and other cases, I draw conclusions about the nature of celebrity justice and the impact of the media on high visibility cases.

In the days before radio and television, trials were covered primarily by the print media. Newspapers wrote articles about notorious cases. Pamphlets were issued containing excerpts from the transcripts. Some lawyers became famous even without the benefit of the electronic media. Daniel Webster, Abraham Lincoln, William Jennings Bryant, Clarence Darrow were all household names. So were some of their famous and infamous clients.

The advent of gavel to gavel television coverage has changed the way in which the public views the law and the way in which the law operates. It has turned lawyers into celebrities and clients into household names. Today, everyone has an opinion on the high profile cases of the day, and these opinions have impact not only in the court of public opinion but in the courthouse as well. No lawyer, especially those who practice criminal or constitutional law, can afford to ignore the impact of this phenomenon on tactics and strategy. Cases can be won or lost as easily on the courthouse steps as in the courtroom itself.

I have played a role in the ongoing debate regarding the manner by which trials are covered, most particularly whether they should be televised. (I think they should and have strongly advocated that view in debates, on television and in articles.) Several of my cases were among the first and most widely televised trials, in our history. In others, I have served as a real-time commentator for trials covered by network television and Court TV.

Throughout my career, I have tried to use the media to the advantage of my clients, and the media has tried to use me and my clients in an effort to sell soap and other commercial products. Sometimes the relationship is symbiotic. More often it is antagonistic. It is rarely neutral. This is especially the case involving the many celebrities I have represented.

Although the vast majority of my clients over the years have been obscure and often penurious—about half of my cases have been without any fee—the media often portrays me as a “celebrity” or “high profile” lawyer. I don’t like those characterizations of my life-work, but there is some truth in it, because many of my cases have been extensively covered by the media. That is in the nature of criminal or constitutional lawyer, since cases involving my specialties tend to raise issues of public interest. It is also true that because I have become relatively well known as a result of these cases, I receive calls from famous people seeking my advice or my representation. I don’t like the term “celebrity lawyer” because it suggests that I select my cases on the basis of the status of the client, rather than the nature of the case or cause. Nothing could be further from

260

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017347