MARK McGUIRE Staff writer
Times Union
Jan. 30. 2004
Anyone who has seen any cop show since the late
1960s can probably cite the Miranda warning from heart:
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be
used against you in a court of law ....
Defendants do not, however, have a constitutional guarantee of access
to a publicist (a glaring omission by the Founding Fathers). But in the
era of Court TV, good PR management is the next best thing to an ironclad
alibi.
With cable channels overheating with the upcoming spate of celebrity
trials, damage control is as much a part of the process as indictments and
judges. But there's an inherent conflict:
Legal advice that might get a client off the hook in court (in short:
say nothing) often contradicts a public relations strategy (which calls
for humility and apology). The coming deluge of media-saturated
jurisprudence is sure to feature just this sort of intramural battle
between those fighting in court and those handling the pretrial scrapes in
the court of public opinion.
For years, defense attorneys have advised their clients to keep their
heads low and their mouths shut. Any wrong phrase or flip remark uttered
publicly or, God forbid, to the media could come back to haunt them in
court.
"I don't let my clients talk -- ever," said Troy criminal defense
attorney E. Stewart Jones, who has handled numerous sensational cases over
the years. "It's always fraught with peril, because you can never predict
what may slip out. Balancing the risk against the benefit, the risk is too
great."
Jones' blanket rule is common. "There is no way to control what
becomes of those words, once they are spoken," said Albany defense
attorney Terry Kindlon. "The simplest statement can be twisted, taken out
of context."
Mike Paul is the president of MGP & Associates PR, a Manhattan firm
that specializes in "reputation management and crisis PR." Paul, a
former aide to former U.S. Sen. Alfonse D'Amato, said that unlike
defense attorneys, PR people want the client to speak.
"The goal for us is to tell our side of the story, just the opposite"
of most defense lawyers' wishes, he said. "Open your mouth.
"The long-term (concern) is reputation. One has the job of getting the
client off -- the legal angle. Our goal is the client's reputation.
"The same topic that might be great in the courtroom might be horrible
in the world of public opinion."
If it seems one out of every three celebrities faces serious charges,
that's because the exaggeration is slight: Martha Stewart, Kobe Bryant,
basketball player Jayson Williams, Mike Tyson, Robert Blake, Phil Spector,
and -- did I leave anyone out?
Oh, yeah. Some guy named Michael Jackson.
The Jackson molestation case should dwarf even the O.J. Simpson trial
in terms of spectacle. (Do you think Kobe was sad to be bumped from the
front pages back to sports?)
Jackson's post-arrest conduct has pundits furiously debating whether
his quest to rebuild his public relations image -- and keep his economic
engine churning -- is jeopardizing his chances in court.
On Dec. 28, CBS's "60 Minutes" aired an Ed Bradley interview with
Jackson. (His attorney, Mark Geragos -- who also represents accused
wife-murderer Scott Peterson -- was also present.) Jackson told Bradley he
still sees nothing wrong with sharing a bed with an unrelated child in a
non-sexual manner, saying that it's "people with a dirty mind" that
think it could be untoward.
The reaction was universal: Bad idea, Mike.
"Everybody believes the '60 Minutes' interview (was) a disaster, a
huge mistake," Jones said. "To allow the press to question him is a
disastrous mistake. (Clients) are just not qualified to handle the press,
to answer their pointed questions, and they are under tremendous
pressure."
Similarly, most have bashed Jackson's performance two Fridays ago both
in and outside of a courthouse in Santa Maria, Calif.
Arriving at court 21 minutes late, after taking time to greet fans. The
entourage moving in pack formation. The impromptu dance on the SUV. The
ice cream social at his Neverland ranch afterward.
"I think this whole spectacle was a legal disgrace from beginning to
end," MSNBC legal analyst Paul Pfingst said on his network's "The Abrams
Report" that night. He called the scene "a legal carnival."
On the same show, noted criminal defense attorney Roy Black called the
orchestration of support "a mistake."
"The whole way they're sort of treating this cavalierly sends a
horrible message to potential jurors," Black said.
Paul had a less severe take earlier last week, saying the scene was
both good and bad for the defense.
Jackson "would rather have people think he's eccentric and weird,
rather than a man who molested kids," Paul said. The fans and
demonstrations were good for Jackson "because we weren't focused on the
issue. (But) I also think it was bad, because with a case like this, we
are used to people being more serious in court."
Jackson has to decide whose advice he's going to take. If his public
actions boomerang against him, he may not be needing that umbrella: He
won't be seeing daylight for a while.
Mark McGuire is the Times Union TV/radio writer. His column generally
appears Sunday, Tuesday and Friday. Call him at 454-5467 or send e-mail to
mmcguire@timesunion.com.
