Designer: Grant Ruof
A courtroom may be where justice is decided, but increasingly, the public is weighing in long before a verdict is reached. From viral posts to online commentary, the media has turned many national court cases into public spectacles. Public opinion has had too much influence on the pursuit of justice in past trials and current ones.
One of the most notorious cases in history is OJ Simpson’s 1995 murder case that ended in a not guilty verdict. This trial was the first time that social media started to collide with high-profile cases.
The 1994 Bronco chase was broadcasted live and drew around 95 million viewers, according to the Los Angeles Times. The trial received continuous television coverage and the acquittal verdict drew around 150 million viewers. By March 1995, 59 percent of Americans said they had followed news about the trial while 24 percent stated they had watched the whole trial live.
Simpson’s trial began to normalize trials as television and wrongfully turned what should have been about justice into entertainment for viewers. Simpson’s defense team took on the title, “Dream Team” and strategically used the media to turn their complicated law terms into memorable phrases that swayed the public’s opinion and placed sympathy on Simpson.
While Simpson’s verdict was not given by the public, this trial was a major turning point in transforming the media landscape and cleared a path for opinion-driven coverage of national cases.
In 2022, the famous Johnny Depp and Amber Heard trial amplified how we know social media to be today, according to The New York Bar Association. TikTok and Twitter became flooded with viral memes and hashtags that took emotional testimony and created entertainment.
The public overwhelmingly supported Johnny Depp throughout the trial, framing his demeanor and witty responses as comic and heroic. The trial became less about domestic violence and more about funny memes and creative viral TikTok clips. Social media was abused as a tactic to distract away from the real cause of the trial.
The intense social media bias illustrated how digital fandoms can run a parallel trial and impact reputations. Even though the public did not have a say in the verdict of this case, it was able to shift the narrative and rehabilitate Johnny Depp’s public image after years worth of scrutiny.
More recently, the trial that has shocked social media is the Lindsey Clancy murder trial. Clancy allegedly murdered her three children and attempted suicide.
The trial ended on Sept. 4, 2026 in a mistrial from one holdout juror stating he felt she was guilty while the other 11 jurors found her not guilty by reason of mental illness, according to the New York Post. The trial began on Aug. 1, and it did not take long for the public to get involved on social media.
The livestreamed trial attracted millions of people through TikTok, Instagram and many online communities. The public intensely used social media to analyze witness testimonies, medical evidence, phone records and even testimony body language.
The main sway of public opinion was through hundreds of conspiracy theories on Lindsey’s husband Patrick Clancy. Many theories suggest that Patrick was responsible for the murders and had framed Lindsey himself. Social media has turned this case into a public forum of opinions where millions of people are invested in Lindsey Clancy’s future.
Not only did social media influence the public to watch the trial, it also generated a witness for the defense. Lindsey Clancy’s defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, discovered Emily Thorndike through a viral TikTok video. Thorndike was a McLean Hospital employee who testified, and while her testimony was not able to be used, it still showed social media’s influence.
Another issue with social media pertaining to legal cases is the problem with jurors using their phones to post on social media or search the internet when not allowed. According to the Boston Globe, the holdout juror, Michael Desronvil, was accused of scrolling on his phone during deliberations instead of participating in the discussion. This should be more prevalent and discussed during trials because jurors using their phones during deliberations can lead to altering their opinion.
The defense has since requested Desronvil’s phone records and hallway surveillance footage. This is a real issue during criminal court cases because social media is a powerful tool in swaying opinions even if not meaning to.
Lindsey’s next scheduled court case is on Nov. 2, and the question stands if there will be a retrial. The issue then becomes that since almost the whole trial now is on social media, it will prove to be a challenge to find 12 more jurors who are unbiased and willing to serve on this case in Massachusetts.
Ultimately, the cases of OJ Simpson, Johnny Depp and Lindsey Clancy show just how powerful social media can be when it captures the public opinion. While social media can be a wonderful place to discuss important issues, it can also blur the line between public judgment and legal judgement. A courtroom is meant to determine guilt or innocence through evidence, not based on popularity or viral narratives.
Be the first to comment