Criminal Proceedings Under Public Pressure: The Lawyer’s Work in High-Profile Trials
Authors:
Oleksandr Zaitsev, Attorney, Grain Law Firm
Maryna Kuzmenko, Paralegal, Grain Law Firm
In today’s society, where information spreads instantly and public opinion is formed faster than a pre-trial investigation is completed, high-profile criminal proceedings are increasingly accompanied by excessive public pressure. Such pressure often arises already at the stage of notifying a person of suspicion, and in some cases even after searches are conducted against individuals who have not yet acquired any procedural status in the criminal proceedings.
This pressure may originate from various sources: investigative journalism, social media posts, political statements, activist campaigns, or simply emotionally charged public discourse in the media space.
As a result, a judicial process ceases to be merely a legal procedure and turns into a form of public theatre, where every action of the parties is analysed, assessed, and commented on by a large number of third parties. This inevitably, even if indirectly, affects the objectivity and impartiality of an independent court.
In such conditions, the legal profession of an attorney becomes particularly significant and complex, as the lawyer must operate in an environment where legal reasoning intersects with societal expectations, mass emotions, and information manipulation. The defence strategy, which must be heard and properly assessed by the court within a fair adversarial process, is continuously subjected to public criticism and rejection, as society in some cases has already “delivered a verdict” at the stage of a search or notification of suspicion.
In high-profile criminal cases, a defence lawyer effectively operates at the intersection of two realities: the legal one, governed by laws, codes, and procedural rules, and the media-social one, where interpretation, assumptions, simplifications, generalisations, and subjective judgments prevail — sometimes accompanied by outright bias.
In many cases, even before a verdict is delivered, an accused person is already “convicted” in social media or mass media. A person may be deemed guilty in the public eye long before a court examines and evaluates all available evidence.
Under such circumstances, the lawyer’s role is not limited to legal defence in a narrow sense. The lawyer must also ensure the client’s fundamental right to an impartial pre-trial investigation and a fair, objective judicial hearing.
Of particular importance in this context is the principle of the presumption of innocence. As public pressure intensifies, individuals are often labelled as involved or guilty long before a judgment enters into legal force.
Such public condemnation in online media, news outlets, Facebook posts, anonymous Telegram channels, and similar platforms constitutes a serious violation of the presumption of innocence. This, rather than bringing the legal system closer to European rule-of-law standards, moves it further away from them.
While a defence lawyer cannot always prevent such violations, they are obliged to respond to them within the legal framework, as the situation may escalate like a snowball effect into uncontrollable proportions.
For instance, a lawyer or the defendant themselves may file a motion with the court alleging a violation of the presumption of innocence if such a violation was committed by law enforcement authorities on social media, YouTube, or other platforms. The court may then respond accordingly.
Such cases have already occurred in criminal proceedings investigated by the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU), where, following defence motions, the High Anti-Corruption Court issued rulings establishing violations of the presumption of innocence as guaranteed under Article 6(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 62 of the Constitution of Ukraine, and Article 17 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. Copies of such rulings were also sent to the Director of NABU for appropriate remedial action.
Examples include the ruling of the High Anti-Corruption Court of 31 October 2023 in case No. 991/392/23 and the ruling of 17 January 2024 in case No. 991/4071/22.
In other situations, where accusations or disinformation originate from media representatives, public activists, or private individuals (including opinion leaders), an effective legal remedy may include filing a civil claim for protection of honour, dignity, and business reputation, as well as compensation for moral damages. In addition, an application may be submitted to the European Court of Human Rights once all domestic remedies have been exhausted.
In recent years, one of the most dangerous environments for exerting public pressure in high-profile cases has become anonymous Telegram channels, where unidentified individuals conduct coordinated information attacks against specific persons, using manipulative techniques such as simplification and generalisation, and presenting allegations of guilt as established fact.
Such information campaigns become particularly active at key procedural stages — when a preventive measure is imposed or extended, when the issue of suspension from office is decided, or when appellate courts review preventive measures or investigative rulings.
This tendency toward reputational destruction and disregard for the presumption of innocence is increasingly dangerous, especially considering that judges are also individuals who read news, scroll social media feeds, and may be exposed — consciously or unconsciously — to such public pressure. In the worst cases, this may even influence their perception of what decision is expected in a high-profile case.
Under these circumstances, public pressure in high-profile proceedings requires not only timely legal response from defence counsel but also broader attention from state authorities, including legislators, who should adopt regulatory mechanisms aimed at preventing any undue influence on the judiciary.
Ultimately, the core issue lies in the phenomenon of simplification and generalisation. It is natural for individuals to rely on superficial judgments and draw conclusions based on simplified information, as this is the fastest and most accessible cognitive approach, compared to careful analysis of each factual circumstance and its evidentiary support.
However, such an approach is fundamentally incompatible with the justice system, whose purpose is to carefully, objectively, and comprehensively examine all facts and evidence in order to establish what is true and what is distorted or misrepresented.
Unfortunately, a significant part of society, disregarding the presumption of innocence, forms its opinion under the influence of media narratives and opinion leaders, without access to the full body of evidence examined in court.
One should also not overlook the psychological dimension.
A person involved in a high-profile criminal case is under immense pressure: fear for personal liberty, concern for family, social isolation, constant media exposure, and often a direct threat to reputation or even personal safety. In such conditions, the defence lawyer often acts not only as a legal representative but also as a stabilising figure—sometimes functioning as a psychological support who provides clarity, explains procedural logic, and helps the client endure a long and complex process.
High-profile cases also frequently involve political context or sensitive public interest. These may concern politicians, activists, law enforcement officers, military personnel, journalists, or business figures.
In such cases, the lawyer must be prepared for even more complex forms of pressure—from state authorities, investigative bodies, civic organisations, foreign partners, or international institutions.
At this level, legal defence often borders on human rights advocacy, as it directly engages with fundamental human rights, the rule of law, and judicial independence.
One of the key dilemmas faced by defence lawyers in public cases is balancing truth with the client’s informational safety.
Information that could strengthen the defence may sometimes not be disclosed for ethical, strategic, or procedural reasons. Accordingly, the lawyer must act cautiously, making complex decisions that affect not only the individual case but also public perception of justice as a whole.
It is also important to note that in high-profile proceedings, lawyers themselves become targets of pressure. Their actions are criticised, scrutinised, and sometimes condemned simply for representing “the wrong person”—which is incompatible with the principles of a rule-of-law state, particularly the prohibition on identifying a lawyer with their client.
Nevertheless, the professional mission of a defence lawyer is to protect the individual regardless of public opinion, and to safeguard their rights irrespective of the case’s notoriety or the client’s identity. This requires not only professional expertise but also strong personal resilience.
High-profile criminal proceedings are therefore not merely court cases under public scrutiny. They are a complex socio-legal phenomenon in which the lawyer plays a key role as a human rights defender, a legal professional, a mediator between the justice system and society, and often the only voice of reason when emotions outweigh facts.
A fair trial in such conditions is possible only if defence counsel can effectively perform their functions despite any external pressure. This is why legal practice in high-profile cases is not merely legal work, but a mission aimed at protecting the fundamental values of a rule-of-law state.