 |
|
| On the media offensive, clockwise from upper right, Martha Stewart, Kenneth Lay and Richard Scrushy. |
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) -
Ken Lay, the ex-Enron CEO facing felony charges over the energy giant's collapse, thinks prosecutors are attacking his wife to pressure him.
Richard Scrushy doesn't like a USA Today article describing the HealthSouth founder's recent foray into televangelism as a covert attempt to sway potential jurors in Birmingham, Ala., where his criminal trial in connection with a $2.6 billion accounting scandal at the health care services company began Wednesday.
Martha Stewart, the lifestyle expert convicted last year of obstructing justice, thinks the U.S. criminal justice system is broken and that prison food is gross.
How do we know this? The Internet, where all three have discovered the power of blogs -- or personal Web logs -- as a way to tell their side of the story.
Go to www.marthatalks.com to learn what Stewart thinks about prison life. To hear from Scrushy supporters, check out www.richardmscrushy.com.
And for a list of Lay's good deeds for the American Red Cross and other charities, head to www.kenlayinfo.com. Or do a Google search for 'Ken Lay.' Unlike the other two, Lay's site appears as an ad on the results page, meaning his site pays whenever someone clicks on the link.
Meet the 21st century celebrity-turned-criminal defendant. No more "no comments" and downcast eyes on the courthouse steps. No more terse statements from high-priced lawyers about "letting the courts decide" or "the facts speak for themselves."
Instead, once high-flying executives now facing prison time are funding savvy public relations campaigns that include television appearances, Internet postings, and exclusive pretrial interviews, not to mention behind-the-scenes strategizing about photo ops and charity work.
The blitzkrieg, legal experts say, is a direct response to the information age and reflects in attempts to shape public opinion.
And public opinion -- not jurors in the courtroom -- matters most when pleading innocence, said Robert Gordon, a Dallas-based jury consultant.
"You don't have a jury of 12 anymore," he added. "You have a jury of 12 million."
Telling a story, fast and to the world
Howard Rubenstein, the New York public relations guru, agreed that times have changed. "For years lawyers would say 'No comment. We'll prove our case at trial'," said Rubenstein. "Unfortunately, a lot of defendants were just overwhelmed by the bad publicity which, subtly or not, can influence a trial."
So Lay embarked on a massive public defense even before his indictment last July, granting select press interviews. The day he was charged he spoke at his own news conference and within days appeared on CNN's Larry King Live.
Stewart turned to King too, and also Barbara Walters. Richard Grasso, the former New York Stock Exchange chief sued by the New York attorney general over $140 million in pay, responded with an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal --and soon after, a lawsuit of his own.
The tactics are ideal because the messages are delivered to the public unfiltered or at least tightly controlled, said Anton Valukas, a former U.S. Attorney now in private practice in Chicago.
"In this way you can develop the perception that the individual (under indictment) is being treated unfairly and that there might be another side to the story," said Valukas, a partner in Jenner & Block, a leading national law firm.
On top of influencing prospective jurors, defendants like Lay and Scrushy could also be laying the groundwork for a post-trial rehabilitation of their tarnished images, legal experts said.
And in the case of Stewart, there was another overriding motive for speaking out: her company. A big 1990s success story, Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia (Research) went into a steady slide after news broke that government investigators were looking into some personal stock sales Stewart made in late 2001.
But even as legal experts praised the extraordinary public campaigns by Lay et al., they noted too that the risks can be high.
Does it help, or hurt?
"The risk they face is that (the public strategy) boomerangs," said Gordon, the jury consultant.
Gordon and other experts pointed to some key missteps by Stewart, who appeared openly defiant before and after her conviction. At one point she likened her prosecution to the fate suffered by former South Africa president Nelson Mandela under apartheid.
"Martha is one who, at times, made some pretty significant mistakes in what she did from a communications point of view," said one public relations expert who's represented some high-profile individuals in crisis situations. "If somebody is willing to subject themselves to television interviews, how do you then tell a jury you're not willing to take the stand?"
Stewart's critics and supporters alike agree that the domestic diva has polished her image since her July sentencing and her decision to do her time behind bars now rather than wait, as she was allowed to, for a decision on her pending appeal.
"I think she's been dented (in the public's mind), but not crushed," said Rubenstein. "She's working on her image and I think she'll come back big time."
As for Lay and Scrushy? The verdict on their public crusades won't be known until their jury verdicts come in, legal and public relations experts said.
"If you have a bad outcome, then you're pretty sure the whole effort was not helpful," said Gordon.
|
