PR Battles Waged in Michael Jackson Case

Aug. 20, 2004 -- Not even a gag order can prevent Michael Jackson and prosecutors in his child molestation case from waging a war in the court of public opinion.

This week, prosecutor and criminal defendant underwent a form of role reversal as Santa Barbara County, Calif., District Attorney Tom Sneddon was forced to testify about the tactics used in his investigation. Jackson, 45, has pleaded not guilty to molesting a now-14-year-old boy who spent time at his Neverland ranch and is believed to be a cancer survivor who appeared last year in the British documentary Living With Michael Jackson.

"The King of Pop" — who was not required to be in court — attended the hearing with his parents and some of his siblings in tow. In a show of solidarity — and not-so-subtle avowal of innocence — Jackson and his siblings were dressed all in white.

The day before the hearing, Jackson made a rare public appearance when he attended Sunday service at Los Angeles' First AME Church, one of the nation's most prominent African-American congregations. Though he was greeted by adoring fans and the congregation welcomed him and prayed for justice in his case, Jackson's presence at the church raised some eyebrows.

"He [Jackson] knew he [Sneddon] was going to be testifying this week. He wanted to bolster his public image compared to Sneddon's, which was going to take a hit," said Steve Cron, a criminal defense attorney.

Jackson, who was raised as a Jehovah's Witness but later disassociated himself from the religion, had never been previously connected with the First AME Church. Some critics found it suspicious that Jackson would embrace the black community during his time of trouble, given that many of his African-American features have disappeared over the years. (Jackson denies having had extensive plastic surgery, and he says his white complexion is due to a pigmentation disorder.)

"It seems pretty transparent. To my knowledge, I don't remember Jackson associating himself with anything in the African-American community," said Cron. "I don't remember him being associated with that church, or any other church for that matter."

Last winter, the Nation of Islam began to handle Jackson's security, and there were reports that the group was playing a larger role in his affairs. Jackson severed his ties with the group in April, at about the same time he dumped his legal team and hired new lawyers.

"It was only a few months ago that he was associating himself with the Nation of Islam," Cron said. "And that caused its own ruckus. But that also seemed like only another attempt to portray himself as a religious person."

Transferring the Black Hat

Because of his bizarre reputation, Jackson, critics say, has to embark on a carefully aggressive PR campaign and not remain reclusive. High-profile celebrity criminal defendants often go on the offensive by portraying themselves as victims.

"That's the question you face when you have a black hat placed as firmly on your head as Michael Jackson and Martha Stewart have had," said Gerald Baron, market research expert and author of Now Is Too Late: Survival in an Era of Instant News. "You try to transfer the black hat and place blame on others and portray yourself as the victim."

Stewart tried to soften her image in interviews before her trial and just after her sentencing for lying about a stock sale. In both interviews with ABC News' Barbara Walters, the doyenne of domesticity insisted she was innocent but showed signs that she wasn't as tough as the public perceived. Before her trial, Stewart admitted she was afraid of going to prison and conceded that she could be insensitive in her strive for perfection in her work.

Directly after her sentencing, Stewart addressed reporters, insisting she never cheated people out of money. She said she believed the case against her was "a direct result of something that was a personal matter, not a company matter."

Jackson's lawyers and supporters have blamed his legal troubles on a variety of factors. They say the district attorney has a personal vendetta against the pop legend.

The two have a history. In 1993, Sneddon sought to prosecute Jackson on molestation charges, but his case fell apart when the entertainer reached a multimillion-dollar settlement with the boy's family. Jackson has always denied any wrongdoing, and no charges were ever brought. Sneddon says he could not pursue the case because the alleged victim refused to testify after the settlement. He denies the current prosecution is motivated by a grudge.

In the current case, sources familiar with the defense have suggested the alleged victim's family took advantage of Jackson's past kindness and is now trying to get a monetary settlement from the pop star. Jackson's family and supporters also have said he is being targeted because of his fame.

In some ways, Sneddon and other Santa Barbara officials may have fueled the public relations battle and the flurry of allegations from Jackson supporters. Last November's police raid on Neverland, the announcement of the charges, and Jackson's arrest and perp walk were all very public. The somewhat jovial atmosphere of a news conference held by prosecutors and the wisecracks by Sneddon were criticized as inappropriate, especially in an alleged child molestation case.

When Two Courts Collide

In the court of public opinion, a celebrity defendant can often win points by maintaining innocence but admitting to some errors in judgment.

"When you have high-profile people like that and they may have been involved in something wrong, I tell my clients the best thing they can do is just be honest and own up to it," Baron said. "The public can be pretty forgiving."

It's a tricky strategy, though, because the defendant doesn't want to concede anything that could be perceived as an admission of guilt in a court of law.

Baron suggested the public might be somewhat mollified if Jackson acknowledged it may have been a mistake to let children stay at Neverland.

"He [Jackson] is facing some serious charges," Baron said. "If he says he isn't guilty of child molestation but conceded that he may have made some errors in judgment in the handling of children, that might go a long way."

Public Relations Reversal of Fortune

Admitting to an error in judgment, but not to a crime, seems to have helped NBA star Kobe Bryant. After he was charged with sexually assaulting a young woman at a Colorado hotel, Bryant appeared before reporters with his wife at his side and said he had committed adultery. But he insisted the sexual encounter with his alleged victim was consensual.

"The press conference was more than a just a PR stunt. That was an attempt to get his story out that he had had consensual sex with the woman but not raped her," Cron said. "It was a nice way for him to tell his side of the story without being cross-examined by prosecutors. It wasn't just him deciding to go the church and portraying himself as a nice guy."

After the judge issued a gag order in the case, news conferences were no longer an option. Bryant's defense team used court filings to question the alleged victim's mental stability and sexual activity in the days following her encounter with Bryant. When sealed documents were accidentally posted on the courthouse Web site, the alleged victim's name and all the defense claims became public. But because of the gag order, prosecutors and the young woman could not respond to the defense allegations publicly.

Suddenly the sexual assault case didn't seem like such a public relations nightmare for Bryant after all.

"There is no question that in the Kobe Bryant case the gag order was very damaging to the alleged victim and the prosecution's side of the case," said Ronald Carlson, professor of law at the University of Georgia. "There was information that was distributed by informal means and by leaks that tarnished her reputation and the credibility of her testimony. There was very little of those leaks that affected the Kobe Bryant side of the case in that way. So, definitely in that particular war of pretrial publicity, the prosecutors and the alleged victim lost."

Pre-emptive Strikes

In public relations strategies, embattled public figures also use news conferences as pre-emptive strikes. When anticipating trouble, it's better to explain your side of the story first.

With his wife and parents at his side, New Jersey Gov. Jim McGreevey decided to announce that he is gay, was involved in an extramarital affair with another man while in office and planned to step down Nov. 15. The announcement came at a time when he believed his former adviser — and alleged former lover — was about to file a sexual harassment lawsuit against him. McGreevey never specifically mentioned the lawsuit, which has yet to be filed.

In Atlanta, former Mayor Bill Campbell called a news conference Monday to respond to corruption allegations in anticipation of formal federal charges.

"What we are seeing in case after case are efforts to put the best possible face on the party's side of the case," Carlson said. "The New Jersey governor, anticipating a possible major lawsuit being filed against him, does the pre-emptive strike and holds a news conference, and this gets his view of the case out to the public first and foremost."

It's an increasingly popular stratagem, Carlson said. "What we're seeing throughout the country are folks doing things outside the courtroom to affect public opinion in hopes that it will have a most positive effect on their in-court case."

But when Jackson goes on trial in January 2005, will jurors remember his visit to the First AME Church, or his appearance for the district attorney's testimony?

"My guess is that his attorneys' thinking was 'Every little bit helps.' But I'm hard-pressed to see how this will have any impact or significance on the trial," Cron said. "If I'm on the jury, I'm not thinking about, 'Oh does he go to church?' I'm thinking about the evidence and whether he did what he's accused of."