Social media and the courtroom: How does public attention affect a trial?

Photo Courtesy: Wesley Tingey via Unsplash

During the 2022 trial of Johnny Depp against Amber Heard, the hashtag #justiceforjohnnydepp hit almost had 20 billion views on TikTok. The media coverage of the trial was extensive and many people quickly took sides when courtroom videos appeared on social media. Clips of Amber Heard’s implausible testimonies became famous and, while a decision had still not been made by a legal jury, people had already condemned her on social media. Although the jury was instructed to avoid news and social media during the trial, questions can be asked about whether their objectivity was influenced by the media coverage and the huge public attention surrounding the court case. Amber Heard herself said ,“…even somebody who is sure I’m deserving of all this hate and vitriol, even if you think that I’m lying, you still couldn’t look me in the eye and tell me that you think on social media there’s been a fair representation. You cannot tell me that you think that this has been fair”. She did not question the decision of the jury in itself but the impact social media had in “sealing her fate” by already condemning her in the eyes of the public sphere. Even though the influence of public attention was not immediately proven in the case of Depp vs Heard, other cases have demonstrated the impact of social media on court rulings. 

 In the case of Aileen Wuornos, America’s first woman serial killer, the media likely played a role in the decision made. Wuornos was condemned to death for killing six men as a sex worker in the 1990s. However, it was revealed afterwards that her attorney, Steven Glazer, received money for doing interviews, and a lot of media exposure for choosing to defend Wuornos. Being inexperienced, he did not know how to handle the case which led to her not being rightly defended. Even though her guilt was not questioned, the outcome of the death sentence was likely influenced by the trial’s media coverage. It made her immediately unpopular in the public opinion and many  wanted her to be condemned to death. The cases of Wuornos and Heard show that public attention on a trial has a major impact as it can potentially even lead to a jury taking a specific decision. 

Moreover, the influence of public attention is not only evident on a trial’s outcome but it can even initiate it. Indeed, when a public accusation is made against someone, it can gain such public attention that the person is tried much quicker than they would have been if the accusation was not public. For an accusation to be taken seriously, some don’t have another choice but to go public to gain credibility and attention from the authorities. For instance, the denunciation of Harvey Weinstein in the New York Times led to his trial and provided a platform for six women to denounce the violence they had suffered. The extreme media coverage of this case encouraged women to file complaints against him and to have him condemned. For this reason, public attention on a trial can be a positive as much as a negative thing. It has the power to make action happen and bring light on something that would have been ignored otherwise. 

The issue of public attention on a trial is double-edged but its influence is undeniable. Information comes quickly and is processed even quicker which means that an opinion on a trial can be made seconds after a trial’s start and can even influence the jury’s ruling. This puts into question the place that social media has in matters that should be addressed as objectively as possible. With information being processed quickly, without checking sources or even doing additional research on the subject, an opinion can be made almost instantly and end up influencing real lives. As social media has now become an unquestionable part of our lives and can influence people in many ways, the issue of its power needs to be addressed.