February, 2004
by Debra Opri - Attorney and Legal Analyst
Our reality today turns upon what we see and hear on television and the internet. All this information.... in a moment of time Everything fast. Nowhere to hide. A world that has become so small, that even a trial is seen and experienced as it unravels before us. Celebrity trials are no different and certainly more examined in the brilliant glare of the media's bright lights. No longer tucked far away in a little courtroom, to be read about in the newsprint after editors have eclipsed the visual demonstrations of the emotions of the words from the examining eyes of reporters interpreting everything that's said, done, and shown, we live to know everything about the celebrity.... and to judge for ourselves, their guilt or innocence, live on television.
All too often in recent days, we have seen the celebrities fall to their knees before the eyes of the law, and to be judged by a jury of their 'peer', really, though, just regular folk who don't have any idea what kind of life this celebrity who stands before them really has... certainly not theirs.
We have recently seen Winona Ryder sit through her own criminal trial for theft. She sat there as witness after witness, and each piece of evidence was shown to the jury. She just sat there as we all wondered, watching on television each night....what is she going to say when she testifies? Will she explain herself? Will we believe her? She did not testify, though. She just sat there, and when the verdict came in, she was found guilty. All of us thought, if she was going to go to trial, why didn't she testify? Why wouldn't she tell her side of the story? If she has nothing to say, we wondered, well then, I guess she must be guilty. Of course, a juror would never admit this, because of a jury admonition that states you cannot hold it against a defendant if they do not testify. But we are also human beings, and reasonable, rationale conclusions are always the rule of law in our very human thought processes.
There are other celebrities going to trial soon: Michael Jackson, Robert Blake, Phil Spector, and the new 'media' celebrity, Scott Peterson. There is an ongoing trial now, that of Martha Stewart, in a New York courtroom.
And the question is: Will Martha Stewart testify? I hope so, because everyone...including that jury...wants to hear her side of the story. I mean, we're only human. If it were us, we argue, we would testify, if we had nothing to hide. But let's be fair. We do want to know what she was thinking when she sold her stocks, and when she talked to the federal investigators? And, what did she really tell the investigators? Why did she talk with them? What did she know about the company at the time she sold those stocks? Did she lie to cover it up? And did she really make those comments to her secretary and best friend, and what did she say to Fanuell, and was she as 'mean' and 'cruel' as he depicted her? Well, we are thinking, if she doesn't testify, the jury will have only one version - the government's - to rely upon in their analysis of this celebrity. And we will never know the 'truth'.
I was a new attorney preparing to do my first trial, when I asked my mother how, if she was a juror hearing this case, I could best make the jury understand that my client was innocent, and whether or not I should have the client testify? Her words are with me today. She told me, "there are always 3 truths: your truth, my truth, and the real truth." She continued, "it is the jury's job to decide which truth they will believe. Always make it easy for them, let them hear from everyone and let them decide. If your client doesn't testify, they'll never really know his side, will they?"
My mother's common sense approach is not unique, but it is lost to a world of individuals who don't have that much common sense anymore. Mostly us lawyers, folks. We seem to forget that those 12 people in the jury box aren't stupid, they just don't go to court everyday because they're in the real world dealing with real people, and when you're being lied to, you kind of know it.
Well, the same goes for all those celebrities that are getting dragged into court lately. They may be somewhat different from the rest of us, in that they get paid more to work, and instead of typing all day, or sweeping floors, or waiting tables, they are in hair and makeup and learning lines, or being fitted for a photo shoot or whatever. But one thing is certain. The celebrity is no longer a mysterious person hiding behind studio power machines who print what's good for the star. In many instances, it is the media that is now the enemy of the celebrity, for their quest is not to make the celebrity shine, but to rub away at the sparkle and lay bare for the public the truth they have uncovered. The celebrity is more alone today than ever before, for it is now on the shoulders of the individual celebrity to fight their own battle of the truth and to speak directly to the public, and in the instance of a celebrity trial, to the jury. Now that the media and internet coverage is immediate and spontaneous, we need to understand that the jury can no longer rely upon the aura of the celebrity, but on the testimony the celebrity provides to challenge what has been said against them.
As the Martha Stewart trial has unraveled, I have found it striking to speak with those of the media who have meticulously outlined the evidence and testimony they witnessed as an audience member in the courtroom. They would listen and then, acting as a juror, but without the restraints, go out and tell the public how bad it was for her and how it was certain that she would be found guilty. They arguably provided a great service to the many people out there, by determining - prior to the jury verdict - how simply 'guilty' Martha is. They have also, however, done a great disservice to Ms. Stewart, by simultaneously with their findings, certifiably state that it is highly unlikely that a celebrity of her stature could be found guilty, despite her guilt. With press like this, maybe the old Hollywood ways are better?
While the days of a star like Fatty Arbuckle at trial for the death of a young wannabee star, having been allegedly raped with a coke bottle at a 'Hollywood party' are gone in terms of the privacy he was afforded throughout his trial, we still have celebrities who will experience the criminal trial, only this time on television, with another kind of jury - the one called the public The ever-present face on television, in the movies, in newspaper and magazines... they,re everywhere. It's the way these trials are covered that is different. Coverage that guarantees that nothing will be left hidden from view.
While Fatty Arbuckle was never convicted of this crime, his career was, in a way, over. And, while there are many other criminal cases to look at, most recently in our generation, that of OJ Simpson, we now know that, no matter what the outcome, the charges and trial will destroy any celebrity.... who doesn't fight back.
What I mean to say is, that all of us, no matter what age, economic level, or part of the world we live in, expect someone to fight for themselves. They expect the accused to come out fighting and to tell their side of the story. They expect it. The law may tell them they can't judge the accused for not testifying, but be assured, this is an area of the law that no one will ever be able to police since the juror need only state they did not take into consideration the fact that the accused did not testify.
I am convinced that Martha Stewart's only chance at being acquitted is her taking the stand and testifying........ she must testify. She has no other choice. The public won't accept anything less. Watch closely all you other celebrities..... listen and learn.
From the courtroom to your living room, this has been another edition of THE OPRI OPINION.
