and Successes of the Pageant World In the Public Eye

In the Public Eye

Story by Ashley Murawski & Joseph Stanger Design & Illustration by Shoshanah Davis

Harvey Weinstein. Bill Cosby. Jeffrey Epstein. O.J. Simpson. Tekashi 6ix9ine. These are considered to be some of the most publicized and polarizing celebrity trials.

But what aspect of these cases has caused people to become so invested in their favorite celebrities, even after commiting a crime? And does this fame and publicity cause bias during the proceedings? O.J.

Simpson & Jeffrey Epstein On Jan. 24, 1995, O.J. Simpson was tried for the murders of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend Ron Goldman, according to The History Channel website. This has been said to be one of the most publicized events in American history.

The website also notes that this case spanned a total of 252 days and Simpson was acquitted on both counts of murder.

Due to the media frenzy surrounding the case, the public began to make their own judgements. Senior Law and Justice Lecturer, Robert Claridge, says, “Much criticism exists over the O.J. Simpson Trial …[specifically] the judge’s decision, which since has

WINTER 2020 | ISSUE ONE been viewed as a mistake, to allow television cameras to film the entirety of the trial.”

While some trials such as Simpson’s had a following from the beginning, others gained momentum later in the proceedings.

Media coverage lacked in the beginning stages of multimillionaire, investor and financier Jeffrey Epstein’s case.

Epstein came to be charged with solicitation of prostitution, solicitation of prostitution with a minor under 18, sex trafficking of minors and sexually abusing underaged girls, according to BBC News. As a result, he was required to register as a sex offender. BBC News also states that while awaiting his trial, Epstein was found dead in his jail cell under circumstances that caused the public to question whether his death was a suicide or a murder and if there were more unknown victims.

The Role of Money and Power Due to Epstein’s large bank account, he was able to evade his original charges for 11 years, according to The New York Times.

“Money is a huge factor in determining settlements — the more money you have, the better representation

and settlement you’ll have,” explains CWU alumna of the Law and Justice department and now Legal Assistant at the Office of Administrative Hearings in Seattle, Washington, Sarah Laasri.

During the judicial process, money can have a variety of different roles, typically benefiting the defendant in the case of celebrity trials. CWU Law and Justice alumna, Breanna Wilson, explains, “Money buys a better defense team and in turn, is more likely to get favorable results for the defendant.” “I think that’s the hidden way in which the system is biased in favor of celebrities is because they can afford [all] sorts of criminal defense attorneys who are perceived as being very good ones, and [are] the ones who charge a lot of money to do that,” says Claridge. Money can allow celebrities to cover up their accusations and potentially result in a lighter sentence.

On Jan. 6, 2020, Harvey Weinstein, a Hollywood film icon, was found guilty by Los Angeles prosecutors for sexually assaulting two women during Oscars week in 2013, according to AP News. The accusations and publicity gained during his proceedings projected the #MeToo movement into the public eye in 2017 and ignited many other victims of sexual assault to share their stories, as discussed in an article by the Chicago Tribune.

Even though Weinstein was successfully charged and convicted of crimes, he still hasn’t served any jail time. “The government has to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt,” says Claridge. “[Sometimes] it feels like a celebrity is getting away with something. They might be, or it might just be that the prosecution convinced the jury that this person is probably guilty.”

Eliminating Bias in the Courtroom Celebrity cases are widely publicized, but how does the courtroom remain bias free? Strategically picking a jury can be vital in any trial, especially regarding celebrities. “When we have a jury trial, it begins with … Jury Selection,” says Claridge. “We call in dozens of jurors, or potential jurors, and then attorneys have the ability to ask questions to those jurors.”

Claridge adds, “We hope that during that period, if there are any biases, those will come to the forefront. We give attorneys the ability to challenge and remove jurors who are displaying those biases.” However, this is not the only method for eliminating possible biases. “The second way is through something called a motion for a change of venue. If an attorney can argue that [their] client … can’t get a fair trial in this particular location, then a judge can order that the trial be held somewhere else,” says Claridge.

An example of this would be if a public figure from Ellensburg, Washington were to be tried in Seattle, in order to avoid possible bias from jurors living in Ellensburg.

But what would happen if other public officials had possible biases against the defendant?

“If a judge is biased, that judge should recuse herself. Attorneys can make a motion to recuse or ask the judge to recuse herself. If a judge fails to recuse herself and that judge does something improper during the jury trial … then the result of that trial can be appealed and potentially overturned later,” explains Claridge.

Trying to create a bias-free courtroom can be a difficult task, yet the court and officials work to ensure that the system remains ethical. Yet, there are still ways to eliminate any doubt about who is involved in each case.

“It begins with who is hired and allowed to be in the court. The hiring process and requirements should be held to strict and high standards,” says Laasri. “When there are serious charges being brought on or celebrity cases, there should be closed courtrooms — only families allowed of the alleged [and] victim.”

It can be necessary for the judge and jury to determine if they have potential biases in a case, as well as reporters who may be biased towards a verdict. Nicole Klauss, former journalist for the Ellensburg Daily Record and current Content and Events Marketing Supervisor for the CWU Publicity Center, advises that, “If you have a bias you should probably not be covering it … I think if you go in with [an] open mind and try to talk to both sides or more than one person, [trying] to get different perspectives, then you’re doing the best that you can.”

At the end of the day, everyone has a bias no matter what. Deciding on the verdict that coincides with the truth depends on the jury’s ability to be honest and fair towards the defendant.