Is there any hard data or objective information on how high profile media attention affects criminal trials?

Question

I think I remember reading somewhere (so take it with a huge grain of salt) that in reality, criminal trials are rarely the thrilling 50/50 toss-ups they are on TV. In reality, criminal trials only result in acquittal about 5 percent of the time. This is because the prosecution has the luxury of not bringing a case to trial if it's unwinnable for them.

But if I think of all the high profile criminal trials I can, from OJ Simpson to Michael Jackson to P. Diddy, to people who aren't celebrities per se, but whose alleged crimes were sensationalized in the media, like Casey Anthony, it seems like the acquittal rate is a lot higher than 5 percent. Better than even perhaps.

This is probably selection bias, but that would imply that media attention makes it more likely a trial will end in acquittal. Do we have anything on that beyond my speculation? (I know how this website feels about speculation). Do prosecutors try cases differently when they're high profile, or do they know not to be so certain of the outcome?

And why would this be the case, since juries are theoretically sequestered, and theoretically have no access to media?

Is it perhaps because these cases tend to be complicated, and as a rule of thumb, the more complicated a case is, the better it is for the accused. A good prosecution case is simple, and succinct.

Answer 1

I haven't gone into the weeds on it, by my understanding is that the best available research indicates that there is at least some indication that moderate publicity may improve your likelihood of acquittal.

From Loges, William. (2006). Relationship Between Pretrial Publicity and Trial Outcomes. Journal of Communication. 49. 104 - 120. 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1999.tb02819.x.:

The results suggested that (a) greater probability of convic­tion was associated with low rather than high levels of publicity; (b) defendants fared better under moderate rather than no publicity levels; and (c) for defendants who were convicted, any degree of pretrial publicity was associated with longer sentences.

Note, of course, that the paper found correlations, not necessarily any causation.

Answer 2

united-states

5% is way way too low.

I can't find actual data on the conviction rate, but anecdotally it is 45-90% for different offenses in different states. Federal cases have areknown to have higher conviction rates, likely due to US attorneys have less public pressure to charge (not accountable directly to voters) and it seems a more political-in-an-office-way environment, rewarding convictions. It may also just be based on the different crimes charged. Wiki has state numbers that point to a dead link for the US, and the Bureau of Justice Statistics page is not for public use to put it nicely.

5% may be a charged versus convicted number, and then it would make sense, the vast majority of cases are plead down to a lesser offense, often for time served.

Remember that the system incentivises pleas, so few defendants will go to trial without a good chance to win, because the charges and thus sentences are worse at trial. This is beyond the idea that many people (including the innocent) plea just to get out of jail; awaiting trial is extremely punitive if you don't make bail. So wealth is another factor for trials.

Death penalty trials are likely an exception. Very few people will beat those, since only the strongest cases will go forward. Beating the death sentence is fairly common, but obtaining a not guilty verdict is not.

So I think you are just seeing selection bias, and celebrity trials skew data towards the rich.