The New Frontier of Justice
Abstract: The focus of this paper is to look into the new two-tied justice system that has been popular in the press during the last few years. It will discuss the special treatment that those with money, especially celebrities, are receiving when they are charged with crimes.
By Teri LaJeunesse
131 Waverly Pl.
Duluth, MN 55803
Key Words: Celebrity Justice, Criminal Charges, Athletes, Celebrities, Justice System, Money, Special Treatment, Press
In today’s society many people have turned to the courts to decide what is just for almost every mundane detail of their lives. Today we seem to be in lawsuit frenzy, with people suing each other over the simplest things that used to be solved easily with a hand shake. With this new-found appeal to the law, justice can be hard to find.
To understand what everyone is looking for through the courts you have to understand the definition of justice. According to Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary justice is defined as “the administration of law; especially the establishment or determination of right according to the rules of law or equity.”
The main problem with trying to find justice today is that the system is not perfect and always changing. It now seems that the world has become interested in the law it has become a full entertainment business. We now have shows like ‘Law & Order’ and ‘CSI’ that have brought the legal system to the attention of the American people. After these shows started there was a rise in real life crime and punishment shows and the emergence of an entire network channel devoted to the legal system.
What this new-found interest in the law has done is to show the emergence of a two-tired justice system that is effecting the overall approval of the justice system. This new tier of the system allows those that are celebrities and those with more money to be treated differently and more likely to let off the hook. But being a celebrity is not all just perks in the justice system and in the public. This paper will focus on what is happening in the justice system that is making it seem like a flawed system.
Money Solves all of Life’s Problems
The first thing that comes to mind when you ask someone why a celebrity would get special treatment in the justice system is money. In today’s society money has a stigma attached to it that makes it seem like it can solve any problem and make your life better. In the case of celebrity justice this is mostly true.
With money comes certain perks. In this instance money buys you better lawyers and more of them. The new high-priced lawyers you have the more likely you are to get an acquittal or mistrial, therefore showing the public that money can buy you your freedom. Many citizens have voiced their thoughts and frustrations about the notion of buying freedom in the justice system with the best lawyers available.
When a celebrity is accused of a crime they have the advantage of being able to hire top dollar attorneys that carry with them a reputation of success in the court system. Take the O.J. Simpson case for example. If Simpson was not a rich and powerful football player he would probably not have won his case, because he would not have been able to hire his star studded attorney team.
Money doesn’t only allow the celebrity to have access to the best defense. “Their teams of lawyers force prosecutors to hire public-relations firms and assign additional attorney to handle the high-profile cases because they don’t wan the perception that money can buy freedom.” (Maier, Online)
Even if a celebrity is broke and can’t afford the best attorney doesn’t mean that the lawyers won’t jump at the chance to represent a famous defendant. Just by the mere fact that the person is famous will trigger the idea that the trial will be covered greatly in the press and lawyers will “still be attracted to doing a celebrity case at a low rate – or even for free – because such case are often challenging and high profile.” (Hilden, online)
Money Buys Longer Trials
Better lawyers have one more ace up their sleeve that makes the justice system seem like there are two different levels. When a celebrity is charged with a crime there tends to be longer trials, especially for major crimes (i.e. Murder), than for the average person accused of a crime. The latest example is the Robert Blake trial compared to the Scott Peterson trial. The Peterson affair took only two years to complete, while the Blake trial dragged on for four years before a verdict was returned. Peterson was convicted of murdering his wife Lacy Peterson and sentenced to death, while Blake was acquitted of trying to hire someone to kill his wife (MSNBC.com, Online)
The reason that this seems different, or like special treatment, is because the longer a trial lasts the more information that a jury has to remember when they finally get the chance to deliberate. It seems like the longer that a trial lasts the more likely that a jury will either not be able to reach a verdict or acquit the defendant because they don’t remember all the evidence against them.
A celebrity can also be seen as buying their freedom because they are able to come up with unusually high amounts of bail easier than the average citizen accused of the same crimes.
Money Working for the Courts
The justice system is starting to come around to the fact that money is key in these celebrity trials. In the Michael Jackson case, the Santa Barbara County office has “asked the media to pay 15 percent of the expected trial costs – some $7,500 a day.” (Pein, Online)
Santa Barbara County officials say that the cost is an “impact fee,” used to cover the cost of security, the closed-circuit viewing room and garbage pickup.
What this case shows us is that celebrity money is not only a hindrance to the justice system, but one that can help those counties hosting the events to regain some of the costs that they are forced to eat in more average cases.
Trial by the Press
The power of the press in the United States is well known throughout the nation and among all of the trial lawyers in the country. It is well known that the better the celebrity the more press coverage they get on a regular basis. So when a defendant if famous there is more talk in the press before, during and after the trial.
A celebrity defendant can have better access to the press and thus allowing them to get their story out to more people. The more people that hear about a trial a head of time makes it harder to have a fully fair trial and jury pool. This has caused some judges to go to extremes to try and make the trial as fair as possible.
Fair Trial vs. Secrecy
One such example is the Michael Jackson trial. From the very beginning, the allegations against the pop-star have remained secret from the public. In fact we still don’t know the actual charges that the pop-star has been charged with. According to an article by Paul K. McMasters for the First Amendment Center everything associated with the trial has been kept secret:
Grand jury transcripts have been sealed. So have more than 40 search warrants. So has a motion to suppress evidence and most of a motion to dismiss charges. The names of the five alleged co-conspirators have been kept secret. The trial judge has imposed a sweeping gag order on the prosecution and defense attorneys. (Online)
In a normal trial the likelihood of a blanket suppression of all document and evidence related to a case is very low. It makes it look like the action is being taken to protect the celebrity. According to McMasters:
The danger here is that the principle of public justice becomes subordinate to the comfort level of the celebrity defendant, the prosecutor and the judge – even though that principle is significant and legitimate. (Online)
Fairness in trials is important no matter what the status of the defendant is, but the idea of fairness has to come about with the means used to obtain it.
If judges are going to give celebrity trials more secrecy because they are so high profile than that secrecy needs to trickle down to other high profile cases regardless of the status of the defendant in the television or music worlds. Most of the Scott Peterson trial was televised on Court TV, but you will not find any of the Michael Jackson trial on TV because of the secrecy of the charges and witnesses. The question that arises is why the Peterson trial is less susceptible to tampering with the increased exposure to the press than the Jackson trial. Peterson was tried in the press prior to trial, but that did not stop the public portrayal of the trial and witnesses. Similarly, Jackson is to being tried in the press, even without the actual charges being known. Yet his trial proceedings are being kept secret.
Jackson is not the only celebrity defendant that received extra secrecy during their trial. In the Martha Stewart stock fraud trial the judge closed the jury selection portion of the process to the media and the public. (CBS News.com, Online)
The press was actually the first group to object to this secrecy and challenged the decision in 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which overturned the judge’s decision to exclude the press and the public, but it was already finished. The court ruled that:
‘To hold otherwise would render the First Amendment right of access meaningless,’…It noted that openness of the court process ‘acts to protect, rather than to threaten, the right to a fair trial.’ (CBS News)
Press: Help or Hindrance?
Another reason that extra press coverage on a celebrity trial creates the impression that there are two tiers of justice is that the press can help and hinder the prosecution of a case. The press can help a prosecutions case by unearthing extra evidence and “…in effect, adding private resources to the prosecution’s already well-funded investigation.” (Hilden) The National Enquirer helped with the civil case against O.J. Simpson when they discovered a photograph of him wearing Bruno Magli shoes that he claimed he had never owned. (Hilden)
Yet the press can also help the defendant’s case by causing red herrings, which can help a guilty defendant go free. A prime example is the Michael Jackson trial. The prosecutor in the trial, Tom Sneddon, has been known to joke about the pop-star, calling him “Jacko Wacko.” (Hilden) This can be taken as a bias against the defendant and work in favor of Jackson:
The jury may get the impression that Jackson faced an adversary who was out to get him, and thus may look especially closely and skeptically at the evidence the prosecution presents. (Hilden)
This allows Jackson to play the victim in the whole ordeal and cause the jury to be overly sympathetic towards his side and not convict him.
Juror’s Become Celebrity
In celebrity cases there seems to be a larger self-imposed burden of proof for juries to convict a superstar. According to Dana Cole the reason behind this is not only the celebrity status (jurors are afraid to tarnish their image), but because those jurors are thinking to the future talk show circuit. “…too often jurors are looking for that free trip to the Today show or Good Morning America. The chances of having that trip are enhanced with an acquittal as opposed to a conviction.” (Maier, Online)
Special Treatment
Besides money and access to the press, celebrities are routinely given special treatment when it comes to their cases. This special treatment is seen in two main forms in the past few celebrity trials.
The first of these special treatment situations is that celebrities are routinely allowed to turn themselves in on their own time schedule and terms. Michael Jackson was allowed to arrange a time to turn himself in to authorities. This is compared to the average citizen charged with a similar crime as being “…rounded up by police and K-9 dogs and dragged into the booking station to be fingerprinted and jailed” (Maier). According to Steve Cron, a lawyer with celebrity clients, “it saves money and resources for prosecutors when they allow suspects to surrender on their own terms.” (Maier)
According to legal expects the idea of self-surrender is not just confined to the celebrity defendants. In fact several average citizens can do the same, those cases are just not covered in the press like a celebrity defendants surrender would be. The non-report in the press is what seems to be fueling the idea of special treatment for celebrities.
The second area that celebrities seem to be getting special treatment is on the restrictions to travel. Michael Jackson was allowed to travel overseas to London to promote his album during his first child molestation trial. When most citizens think about being released on bail they think that you are only allowed to stay in the local area or state. You also would have to surrender your passport to ensure that you do not flee the jurisdiction.
Jackson’s attorney’s defended their client’s trip overseas, by pointing out that:
It is not unusual at all. The accused killer of the ex-wife of Tito Jackson (Michael’s brother) wanted to go to China before his trial, and the judge granted it in exchange for raising his bond…” (Maier)
What this fails to take into account is that the defendant obviously had access to money and therefore was allowed the special treatment. If a middle class defendant, without access to large amounts of money, had made the same request it would have been turned down.
The reason that legal experts give for the special treatment is that in the case of celebrities, where can they run to without being recognized? The entire world knows what Michael Jackson and other celebrities look like, so their flight risk is small. That is unless they escape to a country that will not extradite them back to the United States.