“Celebrity Justice”: Do Famous People Have an Advantage in Court?

Bill Cosby's sexual assault trial is set to begin on June 5, 2017.
Photo: Randy Miramontez / Shutterstock.com

It’s a common source of contention: Does being famous mean you get special treatment during a legal case? Whether we’re looking at big name cases of old—OJ Simpson and Martha Stewart come to mind—or newer legal kerfuffles like Bill Cosby’s trial and accusations of sexual harassment against Bill O’Reilly, it’s hard to deny that celebrity cases do get a lot of press. But in the courtroom, justice is blind. Or at least it tries to be.

In his book Spinning the Law, veteran Miami attorney Kendall Coffey discusses the controversy:

The public usually assumes that celebrities receive preferential treatment at every turn in criminal cases, as well as in civil proceedings. Their lawyers tell a different story. The one point of agreement is that celebrities, like other people with lots of money, can hire the best legal representation. Additionally, a Martha Stewart can afford public relations consultants and even public opinion surveys, while ordinary defendants may be getting advice from only their family members and drinking pals.

On the other hand, Coffey continues, financial resources will only get celebrities so far. Judges are often even more careful with famous defendants to remain impartial, knowing that the media fervor surrounding this kind of trial will call massive amounts of attention to every detail. While high profile cases can make or break a lawyer’s career, they can also have extremely negative results for a less-than-impeccably run court.

“When cameras are hovering nearby,” writes Coffey, “judges know they will not be rewarded for leniency.”

That certainly seems to be the case with the rapidly developing Bill Cosby trial, set to start on June 5. When Cosby’s lawyers recently asked an Allegheny County, Pennsylvania judge to summon thousands of potential jurors to be prescreened, starting with a mailed questionnaire, observers noted that such requests are unusual, not to mention rarely approved. And sure enough, Judge Steven T. O’Neill recently denied the request

While celebrity may not do defendants any favors in court, it could be helpful in keeping them out of it to begin with. When former contributors and employees of Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly brought allegations of sexual harassment against him, neither O’Reilly nor Fox News expressed any particular concern about the situation becoming trial-worthy. Their argument: the women never called the internal hotline to make a report, making their claims appear less than factual. This is despite the fact that an estimated 30 women have come forward with similar claims.

“What does this tell employees about how committed [Fox News] is [to] providing a safe workplace?” said leadership consultant Stan Silverman in an interview with The Huffington Post. “It sends a signal that [O’Reilly’s behavior] is okay.” It’s hard to discount the possibility that O’Reilly is getting a pass on his behavior because of his reputation, particularly as a big moneymaker for Fox News.

Based on these examples, at least, it would appear that celebrity doesn’t provide much of an advantage, if any, once the case has reached court. Before then, however, reputation can easily be used as a shield against litigation, so long as there’s buy-in from all parties on one side.