When in trial, you are fighting two battles: the court of law and the court of public opinion. The court of public opinion has the potential to influence the court of law by using social media content to sway jurors. The Sixth Amendment of our Constitution guarantees a trial by an impartial jury, but in today’s digital age, social media poses significant risks to fair trials and juror impartiality, ultimately having the potential to impact the proceedings and outcomes of a case.[1] When the jury remains impartial, it helps ensure a fair trial, and we, the people, can trust that the verdict is rooted in facts, rather than social media content, outside assumptions, or pressures.[2] Jurors may unknowingly be influenced by the social media content they have access to at their fingertips, despite being instructed to stay neutral and base their verdict solely on the evidence presented in court.
The Rise of Social Media
Social Media has grown exponentially and continues to play an increasingly influential and evolving role in modern society, reaching audiences of all ages worldwide. According to Global Digital Insights, as of July 2025, there were 5.41 billion social media users worldwide, equating to 65.7% of the total global population.[3]
Social media has transformed the way people connect, communicate, share information, and express their opinions; however, when coverage becomes sensationalized or one-sided, it can skew public perception and, in some cases, influence judicial decisions.
The Impact of Social Media in the Courtroom
Nearly half of all U.S. adults use social media platforms to stay informed on news[4]; however, media narratives can create a “trial by media” effect, where public opinion often reaches a verdict before a case is even heard in court.[5] Today’s jurors are more likely to encounter pop-up social media notifications on their phones and computers, making them more susceptible to inadvertently learning about a trial or a sensitive legal issue.
Resisting Disinformation in the Courtroom
Social media has been used with greater sophistication to communicate disinformation and influence public opinion. Taken together, these factors make it challenging for courts to ensure that jury members render their verdicts based solely on what happens in the courtroom, as required. [6] “Social media allows for information to move quickly in updating society on the developments of high-profile, real-time crime cases. However, individuals may receive bits and pieces of the overall occurrences of the trial rather than the full picture,” explained St. Thomas University Prof. of Criminology Dr. Debbie Goodman, via an email.[7] The information jurors receive and see is vital in determining the trial’s outcome; one piece of information can sway the jurors’ decision and has the potential to make or break the trial.
Johnny Depp v. Amber Heard – Social Media Impact
High-profile cases and those involving celebrities are most at risk of being scrutinized and criticized in the media, often referred to as “trial by TikTok.” The Johnny Depp v. Amber Heard trial is just one example of the influence and potential impact that social media can have on court proceedings. The broadcast of the trial captured the public’s attention, creating a media circus, with TikTok becoming a hotspot for pro-Depp and anti-Heard content and coverage. Depp’s online fandom produced a flood of biased content, with the hashtags #JusticeForJohnnyDepp and #AmberTurd trending.[8] It is intense, biased narratives like these that have the potential to influence juror impartiality and create a significant risk to the fairness of the trial.
California v. Menendez Brothers
Another example of the power and influence that social media has on our society, as well as the impact that media narratives can have on swaying public perception, can be seen in the California v. Menendez brothers’ trials and their resentencing in 2025.
The overwhelming media attention, from televised trials in the 1990s to TikTok debates today, has made the Menendez brothers’ case a media spectacle. Public opinion, shaped by headlines and talk shows, blurred the line between justice and entertainment, and between evidence and speculation. The media did not just report the story; it shaped it, influencing the public perception and, arguably, the outcome of the trial[9]. The first Menendez brothers’ trial in January 1994 was televised and was declared a mistrial after both juries were deadlocked. The judge for the second trial in 1995-1996 banned television cameras from the courtroom, and the trial ultimately ended in both brothers being convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison.[10] At the time of their trials, the brothers were portrayed as greedy, entitled, and spoiled children who were motivated to kill their parents out of hatred and hopes to acquire their $14 million estate.[11] This influence on justice lies in the way media coverage framed the narrative long before a jury deliberated. [12]
Most recently, after a 2024 Netflix series introduced the Menendez case to a new generation of viewers, reigniting media spotlight and public debates, it led to what some call the Menendez movement, even getting the attention of Kim Kardashian, who advocated for the Menendez brothers’ resentencing. In May of 2025, the Menendez brothers were resentenced to 50 years to life in prison, making them eligible for parole. “The resentencing of the Menendez brothers speaks directly to the power and influence that social media and new media have on our society,” Adam Guillette, the president of Accuracy in Media, told Fox News Digital.[13] Thus, further illustrating that in today’s digital age, social media is powerful, influential and unavoidable, it can create a significant risk to the fairness of the trial. The information jurors receive and see is vital in determining the trial’s outcome.
When dealing with social media coverage on court proceedings, it’s important to remember justice is the goal, not entertainment. Innocent until proven guilty, sticking to the facts of the case will help minimize outside noise and ensure the jurors are given only the necessary information to come to a fair and impartial verdict solely based on the evidence presented in court.
To address the influence and potential impact of social media on court proceedings, the process must begin during voir dire. Questioning prospective jurors about their social media use is essential to selecting individuals who will respect the integrity of a fair trial and remain focused on the facts. Reminding jurors to stay neutral and base their verdict solely on the evidence presented in court is critical to upholding the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution and hopefully shielding those involved in trial from the court of public opinion.
Written by:
Kamilla Moreno
Law Clerk
GUERRA LLP
875 East Ashby Place, Suite 1200
San Antonio, Texas 78212
Phone: (210) 447-0500
Frank Guerra
Board Certified – Personal Injury Law
Texas Board of Legal Specialization
GUERRA LLP
875 East Ashby Place, Suite 1200
San Antonio, Texas 78212
Phone: (210) 447-0500
Be sure to follow us on Instagram and Facebook to see more Guerra LLP news!
