Trying cases in the court of public opinion refers to using the media to influence public support for one side or the other in a court case. This can result in persons outside the justice system (i.e. people other than the judge or jury) taking action for or against a party. For instance, the reputation of a party may be greatly damaged even if they win the case.[1][2] Lawyer Robert S. Bennett noted that when he represents high-profile clients, he sometimes finds them in a (figurative) Bermuda triangle of cross-currents generated by a criminal investigation, the news media, and the U.S. Congress.[3] It has been noted that there is no Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in the court of public opinion.[4]
It is said that high-profile cases have important implications for balancing the right of the public to scrutinize the judicial process and the right of the participants to a fair trial.[5] An argument against U.S. ratification of the Statute of the International Criminal Court was that a politically motivated prosecutor might attempt to convict the United States in the court of public opinion of a violation of international law, by charging one of its military or civilian officials with war crimes.[6] The court of public opinion has been described as the most important informal court.[7]
It could be argued that the prosecutor in the Duke lacrosse case attempted to try the case in the court of public opinion by making unsupported allegations to the media.[5] In the Kobe Bryant sexual assault case, it was alleged that parties were using court pleadings as press releases.[8]