Legal News

Oprah and Me: Understanding Public Opinion in High Profile Cases

By Brian Harris

My 2.5 Minutes of Fame
By Melissa M. Gomez

A couple of weeks ago, I was interviewed by the Philadelphia Fox News station regarding the Oprah Winfrey defamation trial (before it settled, of course). The topic was about whether Oprah could get a fair trial in Philadelphia considering that just about everyone knows who she is. 

My short answer was this: Just being familiar with a celebrity does not make a person biased either for or against them. Just because the court will be hard pressed to find one (let alone twelve) people who don?t know who Oprah is, that does not equate to bias. The questions to a potential panel must go much deeper than that.

The issue for this case was that it dealt with a high profile celebrity in a highly publicized defamation trial about highly publicized abuse incidents in a highly publicized school. The layers of relevant public opinion here ran much deeper than Oprah herself. The trial teams on both sides would be wise to consider those opinions, and, more effectively, research all of these layers of opinion to determine how they may impact juror perceptions of the case.

While this case was a ?fun house mirror? example of how public opinion can influence a high profile case, these issues are relevant in any kind of case in which public opinion is of relevance. A community may have certain perceptions of a public or corporate litigant, an event that has been highly publicized, issues similar or related to incidents that have been publicized, etc. 

Moreover, because of a history or culture within a specific community, public perceptions in that community may differ from others. For example, in a contract dispute over a television show, the trial team was in New York City and the trial was in Los Angeles. The trial team asked me why we couldn?t just do our jury research in New York. ?Won?t it be easier??  While easier, perceptions of the entertainment community, especially the negotiations behind it, are quite idiosyncratic in Los Angeles, where film and television are a main industry.  On the other hand, New York is?well?New York.

Third Grade Logic: When You Assume ?

The trouble with public opinion is that we often think we understand what it is and how it will influence perceptions of a case. That is not always true and such assumptions can get a trial team into trouble.

Let?s take the Oprah Winfrey example. Most people immediately assumed that the plaintiff in the case would be in big trouble at trial. After all, just about everyone loves Oprah, right? The news report I participated in had also interviewed some community members who couldn?t say enough nice things about Oprah: ?She is an inspiration;? ?She does so many good things.?  Therefore the conclusion was simple: The community would automatically favor the beloved celebrity.

But let?s take the other side.  Folks who were openly avid Oprah fans likely would not be able to participate in the trial ? their bias would likely be clear and they would be struck for cause.  Those left may be able to take a more rational approach and view the case more through their understanding of the power of her voice without considering themselves subject to that power. Depending on the evidence presented in the case, a perception like that could be quite detrimental to Oprah?s defense.

So which of these perceptions was more prevalent in the community? What were the characteristics of folks who fell on one side or the other? Is there a different public perception that was more relevant for this trial?  I have no idea. Only the community, itself, knows.

Public opinion and its impact on perceptions of a case are not always predictable, and it is dangerous to assume that it is. Look before you leap, especially on cases with high media and monetary exposure. There is no way to know what public opinion really is and how it will impact perceptions of a case without looking closely at it.

How can you get a sense of what is really going on? Get out into the community and ask people.  Conduct phone surveys to get visceral reactions from a large number of folks. Conduct mock trials to get more in depth analyses with fewer people. 

You may just find that there is a distinct difference between what you believe people think, and what they actually think.  

Melissa M. Gomez, Ph.D. is a jury consultant and owner of MMG Jury Consulting, LLC. She holds a Ph.D. in psychology from the University of Pennsylvania. Her experience includes work on more than 100 jury trials in Philadelphia and across the country, with a focus on the psychology of juror learning, behavior and decision-making. She has more than a decade of expertise in research design and methodology, as well as in behavioral and communication skills training.

This posting is for general informational purposes only and should not be construed or interpreted as advice specific to any matter. Each case is different and no strategy applies uniformly to all.

If you have any questions regarding jury psychology that you would like to see addressed in this blog, please contact Dr. Gomez at melissa@mmgjury.com or call 215-292-7956.

Melissa M. Gomez, Ph.D.
MMG Jury Consulting, LLC
www.mmgjury.com

Full post as published by The Legal Intelligencer Blog on April 01, 2010 (boomark / email).