How to face down the media spotlight — and survive

“If something is going to be written [about your case], a ‘no comment’ response is not effective.”
—Minneapolis attorney Andrew Parker

By Michelle Lore, Minnesota Lawyer

June 13, 2008 — A case involving a grisly double murder, allegations of police brutality or the potential loss of the Minnesota Twins is bound to attract more public interest than a minor personal injury action or a contract dispute between small business owners.

What’s less certain, according to attorneys who represent litigants in headline-grabbing matters, is whether or to what degree they should respond to inquiries from the media. To the greatest extent possible, many of them try to avoid public attention.

“Trying a case in the media doesn’t work. It may work in Hollywood, but it doesn’t work in Minneapolis,” said Minneapolis attorney Ronald Meshbesher, who has represented criminal defendants in numerous high-profile cases over his career, including Marjorie Congdon Caldwell, who was tried for a double murder at the Glensheen Mansion in Duluth in the late 1970s.

Other lawyers echoed that sentiment.

“I’m generally not interested in litigating cases in the media,” said Minneapolis attorney Andrew Parker, adding that only part of what is said to a reporter may be used in the story and statements can be taken out of context. “It can be used in a negative way even if not intended that way,” he said.

‘No comment’ not sufficient

As with any general rule, exceptions exist. In fact, there are times when not only is it a good idea to talk to the press, but it’s a mistake not to.

“Every case is unique,” said Meshbesher. “In some cases it’s appropriate to make a comment, especially if they are reporting something that we believe is completely erroneous.”

Minneapolis attorney Stephen Cooper said that when responding in that situation, don’t just say that the other side is being inaccurate, provide your side of the case as well — and don’t wait too long to do it. “Get out there and pontificate as to why your point of view is correct,” he suggested. “If you are silent and they aren’t … you’ll pay a huge price for it.”

Cooper also said to “stick with the story” as it unfolds, especially if the other side continues to talk to the media. “Be in a position to respond, but not let them control the conversation,” he said.

Parker said that he’s defended a couple of higher-profile cases over the years where the plaintiff’s attorney used the media to drive the case one way or another. His clients didn’t want to respond, so he didn’t. But, in retrospect, he believes it might have been a mistake not to offer a reply.

“If something is going to be written [about your case], a ‘no comment’ response is not effective,” said Parker.

The days of saying “no comment” are over, agreed Minneapolis attorney Robert Bennett. “Most [reporters] are going to write something anyway, so it’s better for your message to be out there.”

But practitioners emphasized the importance of taking the time to verify the information that you give to the media.

“Sometimes lawyers make fools of themselves by jumping the gun,” Meshbesher said.

Know your message

When Bennett was representing plaintiff Craig Mische in a high-profile police brutality case back in the mid ‘90s, a friend suggested he go through “media training” to learn how to talk to the press. He has since handled many other high-profile police brutality cases, including one involving Minneapolis police officer Duy Ngo, who was shot by a fellow officer five years ago.

Bennett said that he learned a lot that has been helpful to him in dealing with the media. Call reporters back when they leave a message, be courteous, be considerate, be forthright and be truthful, he said. “Know your message before talking to the media … and have some clarity to your message.”

Cooper agreed, suggesting it’s a good idea to take some time before responding to the call in order to consider why the media might be interested in a particular case. Sometimes it’s obvious, but when it’s not it gives the attorney a chance to focus on what the reporter may want to know, he said.

For attorneys who will be handling a lot of high-profile cases, Parker advised building relationships with particular reporters. “Work with the media; work on the story; identify their thesis and help them form that thesis from your client’s perspective,” he said.

Trying times

In some cases, attorneys say, it’s the media that wants to keep the matter in the public eye.

Meshbesher said that when attorneys agree to keep talking about a case it keeps public attention on it, which may create problems for them down the road. The more a case is discussed in the news, the tougher it is to find impartial jurors to hear the case, he explained.

“Pre-trial publicity is generally not favorable to a defendant,” said Meshbesher. “The less of if you have, the better chance you have to get a fair trial.”

Parker added that many judges don’t appreciate a case being tried in the media either, especially if it interferes with jury selection or juror bias.

In addition to the problem of finding unbiased jurors, there is the even bigger problem of maintaining juror impartiality in a highly publicized matter. Lawyers said that while jurors are told to avoid press about the case they are hearing, some come across the information anyway, either by accident or on purpose.

It can be disruptive to the case if jurors have to be replaced due to their not being able to avoid news stories, said Parker.

Ethical issues may arise in high-profile cases as well. Attorneys warned against alleging criminal or dishonest conduct on the part of an opposing party if it’s not been established. They also advised being careful not to reveal too much when talking with the press.

“Be careful in terms of the attorney-client privilege issues,” Parker warned.

Once a high-profile case gets to trial, however, lawyers say they focus on the case to the exclusion of all else.

“When I’m trying a case, I don’t worry about the media,” said Bennett. “Once a trial is on, the forum that is important to me is the courtroom … until after the verdict is rendered.”

Back