Beauty & Jury Verdicts: Are Attractive People More Likely To Be Found Innocent?

Unless you’ve been putting a concerted effort into avoiding the news, perhaps due to burnout from the recent presidential election, you’ve probably seen the headlines about the murder of UnitedHealth Care CEO Brian Thompson. The public struggled to mourn Thompson, as he earned tens of millions of dollars per year ultimately by denying the claims of hard-working policyholders across the country.  While the killer initially evaded capture, 26-year-old Luigi Mangione has been arrested and charged with murder for the crime. Despite the dazzling smile and killer bone structure displayed in surveillance footage early in the investigation process, the world was shocked to learn that the defendant in this monumental case is not only a young white male, but also wealthy, educated, and was his (private) high school’s valedictorian- yet looks more like a homecoming king quarterback. 

With topics like jury nullification and putting commissary on a prisoner’s books trending, it draws the question- can a defendant’s good looks help their chances at trial? Without looking at any official research, my prediction is that the answer will be a resounding “yes.” Read on to learn more about how physical attractiveness can affect a criminal defendant’s chances during a trial by jury. If you’ve been charged with a criminal offense in Arizona and are seeking high-quality defense counsel for your case, our attorneys are here to assist. Call 480-833-8000 to schedule your free case evaluation with one of our experienced criminal defenders. 

Research On Physical Attractiveness & Jury Verdicts

It’s no secret that beautiful people garner advantages in just about every area of life. A 2010 Cornell study found that unattractive defendants receive prison sentences that are, on average, 22 months longer than good-looking defendants. While this can be devastating news for an unattractive criminal defendant, the right defense attorney can find a way to work around these obstacles. The study identified two main types of jurors: emotional processors and rational processors. Emotional processors are more likely to be forgiving to an attractive defendant and be harsh on an unattractive defendant. So during voir dire, or jury selection, defense counsel should assess the overall situation to determine if emotional processors or rational processors would be more favorable to serve on the jury. The attorney should ask questions meant to identify the qualities associated with emotional or rational processing to select a jury as strategically as possible. 

Another relevant factor identified by this study is the severity and moral ambiguity of the crime. Attractive defendants saw the most lenience when their alleged infraction was minor or somewhat justifiable. Mangione was charged with second-degree murder (New York only charges murder in the first-degree for certain protected categories of victims like police officers), which is hardly a minor offense. However, UHC has the highest denial rates of any health insurance company and has more revenue than Chase Bank. I have had the personal experiences of being scammed by a fake doctor and receiving a bill thousands higher than I was originally told (two separate incidents) through UHC. But apparently that is acceptable if a few dragons get to add a portion of my paycheck to their hoards- and my problems have been so minor compared to what so many families deal with on a daily basis. What I’m trying to say is that there are some people who may view the crime of gunning down a health insurance CEO as a morally ambiguous act. 

Even if a jury doesn’t view the killing of Brian Thompson as a morally ambiguous act, research shows that juries still exhibit attractive-leniency bias in the face of strong and clear evidence against the defendant- even when the charge is murder. But a factor that may weigh against Mangione is that jurors are more likely to be sympathetic to defendants they view as similar to themselves. Most people are not high school valedictorians that went Ivy League but just as easily could have gone into modeling. Mangione also comes from considerable wealth, a trait most of us don’t share with him. However, this makes his motive all the more compelling, when his family could easily afford any medical treatment he could ever possibly need. 

What About The Insanity Defense?

Mangione reportedly lost contact with loved ones for several months prior to the shooting and after a traumatic back injury and surgery. Also, mental illness is usually part of the equation when you’re dealing with someone as evidently intelligent as Mangione. For many, mental illness symptoms peak in a person’s 20’s. Mental illness can breed chaos, but every great piece of art and innovation started with a crazy idea- or a delusion of grandeur, as a psychologist might call it. While Mangione is currently busy fighting extradition, there appears to be some groundwork for an insanity defense if his case proceeds to trial. Limited research is available on how attractive defendants fare using the insanity defense. Below are some famous examples of defendants I find good-looking (there weren’t that many!) and their success in using the insanity plea:

• Lorena Bobbitt: While Bobbitt’s looks certainly didn’t keep the media away, it was the act she committed that created such a frenzy. She admitted to separating her husband’s manhood, but there was extensive evidence that he was abusive towards her. The jury found her not guilty by reason of temporary insanity and she was ordered to complete 5 weeks of treatment at a mental hospital. 
• Daniel Sickles: Sickles may not have been traditionally handsome, but people in power are considered more attractive and he was a Congressman in the 19th century. He paved the way for the temporary insanity defense when he shot his wife’s lover upon learning of their affair. He continued his career in politics after being acquitted by the jury. 
• Ted Bundy: A murderous psychopath may be insane but isn’t necessarily entitled to a defense based on that fact. Bundy is one of the most famous serial killers in history, known for disarming women with his looks and asking for help due to an injury, only to abduct and murder them. One of the witnesses in his defense, Carole Ann Boone, was probably just as insane as any defendant to ever use the defense and legally married Bundy on the witness stand. The jury did not buy Bundy’s insanity defense and found him guilty of murdering Kimberly Leach. 

Determine The Best Strategies For Your Case With Our Arizona Criminal Defense Team

If you’re attractive and charged with a criminal offense, you can’t sit back and coast on your looks, like you may have done for most of your life, when your liberty is at stake. If you don’t consider yourself attractive, give yourself a compliment today. Either way, you should discuss the charges against you with an experienced Arizona criminal defender. Our experienced criminal defense lawyers will determine the best course of action given your personal circumstances. Create a strong defense and mitigate the negative effects of a criminal prosecution by retaining an attorney you feel confident in and can trust. Interview a member of our team for yourself today with no risk or obligation- call 480-833-8000  to schedule your free consultation.