How social media infiltrates celebrity court cases like recent Gwyneth Paltrow trial

The media tends to give their verdict on celebrity trials before, during and after their trial. Photo illustration by EMILY PARIS, photo editor

Every couple of months a new celebrity is in court. Last year, Johnny Depp was facing off against Amber Heard, and Alec Baldwin is still currently waiting to take the stand. Most recently, Gwyneth Paltrow was in the hot seat in front of a jury. 

Often celebrities are thought of as untouchable, but occasionally, their public image triggers onlookers to villainize them due to past public actions, publicity surrounding the trial, and of course, TikTok videos directly from the courtroom that paint them in a bad light. These videos lead the public to come up with their own verdict before the judge can. 

“Everything has indeed turned into a spectacle nowadays, even non-celebrity trials,” Chapman University psychology professor Andrea Wolfs told The Panther. 

Terry Sanderson sued Paltrow for $300,000 in 2019, alleging she crashed into him in 2016, breaking his ribs and causing brain damage on a ski slope in Park City, Utah. Paltrow countersued him for a symbolic $1, showing she didn’t want to win for the money but rather for the principle of being proven innocent.  

When it was announced she was heading to court, Paltrow went on the "Art of Being Well" podcast. While on the podcast, she was asked what her wellness routine is. She responded by saying she eats soup, specifically bone broth, at noon, something paleo for dinner and then intermits and fasts until noon the next day. 

It’s safe to say, people had a lot to comment about this with dietitians and several other people reacting to this snippet on TikTok and Instagram, calling her health regime promotion harmful. 

Senior creative producing major Gabriella Lee told The Panther that this coverage carried over to the eight-day trial, which started March 21, with videos of Paltorw in court showing up on people’s “For You” pages featuring the cross examiner commenting on her appearance. 

“I don't know if her going on the podcast was planned to put her on the radar, but it definitely backfired because she was in court while people were commenting on the podcast and saying bad things about her,” Lee said. 

Chapman psychology professor John Hunter, whose focus is social media, said group identity bias often influences a large number of people to believe and say the same thing as everyone else. 

“It makes us psychologically comfortable to agree with people that we are close to or people that we like,” Hunter said. “So, if you have your friends, your internet or real friends, voicing a certain opinion, you're probably going to go along with that too.”

Hunter told The Panther that people’s willingness to make comments on social media could be linked to terror management theory, where living creatures understand that they have a short time on earth and thus comment on big events to be a part of them

“(Terror management theory) is used as an explanation for why we have things like cultural icons because it allows us to attach ourselves as these immortal existential beings that are only on earth for so long to something larger,” Hunter said. “It's not that we necessarily think, ‘I'm gonna die, I want to be connected to (Paltrow’s) big event,’ but it's an explanation for why we are like that and these things are kind of going on unconsciously.”

Additionally, Hunter said the algorithms on most social media apps don't help level any bias.  Social media amplifies an extremely positive or negative idea on newsfeeds.

“Once you start going down a rabbit hole of information, it'll keep taking you deeper and deeper down that rabbit hole,” Hunter said. “If you start looking at information that is negative about Gwyneth Paltrow, you're going to be presented with more information that is negative.”

So how does all of this factor into Paltrow's trial? Wolfs said publicity surrounding celebrities during the time of their trial is a huge factor that affects a jury’s decision. 

“There's a lot of media coverage about these cases, especially if they're big cases, such as a celebrity being accused of skiing into someone,” Wolfs said. “It's fairly likely that these jurors were exposed to (media coverage) to some degree. Additionally, a lot of them were very likely to know who Gwyneth Paltrow was before the trial started. If you know someone, you have opinions about them, so a lot of them went into that trial already with opinions about who this woman is.” 

Paltrow's celebrity status only came into play momentarily according to jury member Samantha Imrie. She told the ABC News, “I didn’t feel that she had a reason to lie under oath. She’s always in the spotlight so she always has to be honest.” 

Imrie, who is a nurse, said in the interview that she ultimately based her final verdict on the scientific facts presented in court. 

“I think the fact that Dr. Scher could speak to the settings and he specifically studied snow science, that he had a stronger opinion,” Imrie said in the interview with ABC. “I think it’s important that the public doesn’t just think this was a win because Gwyneth is a celebrity. This is based on the evidence and this is based on the law. I do work in medicine and you have to look at everyone the same. That should apply in the courtroom as well.”

Other celebrities have not been as lucky as Paltrow when their verdict was read. Amber Heard had claimed Depp abused her in an opinion published in The Washington Post back in 2018. However, Depp filed a defamation lawsuit against her afterward, and when they went to court in Virginia last April, people highlighted clips from the trial on social media. Most of these clips made Heard look to be caught in a web of lies and Depp to seem as suave as ever. 

“I think it opened people's eyes into believing that you can't believe the first thing you hear because Amber originally made claims about Johnny Depp but she was proven guilty in the defamation case,” Lee said. 

Wolfs said that psychologically, women are more often believed in court if they had no criminal background prior to their trial much like Heard. However, if they have an extensive criminal background, Wolfs said people believe them less in court because they do not fit into their gender stereotype of being unproblematic. 

Even stereotypes couldn’t help Heard escape from the immense amount of publicity that made her look guilty both inside and outside the courtroom. 

In regards to Alec Baldwin's fate, he will soon be going to court due to his alleged part in the 2021 “Rust” shooting. Baldwin has not had the best reputation over the years, such as punching someone for taking a public parking spot someone was holding for him in 2018, to several more aggressions seen over the years. 

“(Whether publicity affects trials) must be very dependent on the person that's on trial,” said film studies professor Jacob Bohrod. “Alec Baldwin obviously lost all of his public favor over the last 10 years with being very blatant and how he harasses his daughter and all of those tapes of the horrible language he uses. Just as a person, he's lost his favor.” 

Even after Gwyneth won her case, The New York Times published an opinion saying that Paltrow should have settled the case out of court. The writer, Elizabeth Spiers, said she doesn't want her tax dollars to pay for a millionaire to go to court over a little case.

“Ms. Paltrow could have settled and did not because she could afford to take the case to trial and wanted to prove her innocence, perhaps to avoid a future shakedown by someone prepared to extract money from her,” Spiers continued in her piece. 

Three days later, Anne Rettenberg wrote a response to The New York Times stating that Paltrow rightfully took the case to court as a means to avoid others from using celebrities, expecting them to pay them off.

“Ms. Spiers claims that the issue is that public money was spent on the lawsuit,” Rettenberg wrote in her response. But wouldn’t settling the case encourage others to file bogus lawsuits against celebrities or other rich people? In the long run that would mean far more public dollars spent on frivolous lawsuits.”

No matter what year it is or what celebrity is taking the stand, the media will always give their verdict before, during and after the trial with all the jurors at home being influenced by articles and videos online, so think critically.