The practice of televising pop culturally significant trials is both a blessing and a curse. It is a blessing in how it makes court proceedings more public, allowing people from all over the world to watch and obtain a deeper understanding of how our legal system works; however, it becomes a curse when people take it too far and treat it like a television (TV) drama.
In our legal system, jurors should be impartial throughout the trial and base their opinions on evidence rather than personal opinions. Every defendant has the right to a presumption of innocence until proven guilty, and it is up to the jury to determine if the evidence presented proves the guilt of the defendant. As part of this, jurors are prohibited from discussing the case with anyone outside of the courtroom or from watching or reading any news pertaining to the case while the trial is ongoing. This is usually not a big deal for jurors in misdemeanor cases, but for larger cases, with the attention of the whole state or in some cases, the entire nation, it is almost impossible. These cases don’t just have news reports done on them, the entire proceeding is televised to the public. As the public does not have the same rules jurors do, they can post about the case on social media as much as they like. This ultimately creates an endless stream of court-related content that is hard to escape, making it nearly impossible for jurors to remain impartial.
A prime example of this was during the Johnny Depp v. Amber Heard trial, where it was impossible to open social media without seeing artistic fan edits of Depp or open YouTube without being greeted by a video along the lines of: “Amber Heard LYING for almost 20 minutes straight.” It was inescapable and, frankly, inappropriate. This was a trial about domestic abuse, and no matter the outcome, it was incredibly ghoulish to make a mockery of a serious topic that affects so many people by making lighthearted and comedic TikToks about it.
An important detail of the Depp v. Heard case is that Depp originally sued Heard in the United Kingdom and lost. There were three major factors that differentiated the second trial from the first. The second trial that took place in the United States was a jury trial and was completely televised. While there is no proof that the jurors were at all swayed by the influx of videos online, considering how ubiquitous the content was, I have heavy doubts they saw nothing at all.
In a more recent example from April 2024, the state of Massachusetts would begin a trial known as Massachusetts v. Karen Read. The defendant, Karen Read, was accused of backing over her fiancé, former Boston, Massachusetts, police officer John O’Keefe, with her car in 2022. The entire case was live-streamed on CBS. If you wanted to, you could watch the entire thing on YouTube. This drew the public eye to the trial itself. People began watching the live stream of the proceedings and immediately went to post on social media. The hashtag “#FreeKarenRead” was trending almost immediately.
It was all everyone talked about in the state. Gossipers forget that these are real people. Somebody is dead, and somebody did it, whether Read backed over her fiancé like she is accused or otherwise. It wasn’t fiction or reality TV, it was a legitimate and sensitive legal proceeding. Everyone in these trials has families, especially the victim and the accused, who will inevitably see the content discussing their situation. The trial eventually ended in a mistrial due to a hung jury, with one jurist later telling CBS Boston that they feared for their life because they were visible on camera, and people could find out who they were and come after them and their families if they didn’t like the verdict.
Watching a trial is fine, in fact, if you want to learn more about our justice system, I encourage it. However, while you watch, remember that everything you see is real, everyone is a real person, with feelings, with a family and with the ability to see anything that you post about it.
