That power can make others do strange things. The classic example was the young girls who trailed after the Beatles. A more recent one had been the star-struck White House intern, Monica Lewinsky.
Those are cartoonish examples of how the celebrity aura can take hold.
Then there are more serious ones. On Abovethelaw, lawyer-journalist, Kathryn Rubino, raises the issue if Derrick Rose's fame unduly influenced the judge and jury in a $21.5 million rape trial.
Rose and two friends were accused of a gang sexual assault of a Jane Doe. Their defense was consensual sex. The jury bought it. Here you can read Rubio's commentary.
The three, including the New York Knicks star, might indeed have been innocent. But, members of the media have presented the odd behavior at the end of that legal proceeding. For example, U.S. District Court Judge for the Central District of California, Michael W. Fitzgerald, wished Rose luck when the Knicks faced the Lakers. Jurors gleefully posed with Rose for photos.
Not that any hint of special treatment is always present in trials involving celebrities. In fact, being a brandname can work against the defendant. Had former MicKinsey head and philanthropist, Raja Gupta, not been famous, he might have gotten off in the insider trading trial. After all, the evidence seemed circumstantial.
Because Gupta had been so successful, his getting cozy with financial thugs for seemingly so little might have made him reprehensible in the eyes of the jury. After all, few of them reached the professional level he had. An unconscious motive in having a guilty verdict could have been to "teach him a lesson."
Because of Rubino's outing of the Rose post-trial activity, celebrity trials will be more closely watched for any seemingly inappropriate judge rulings and jury verdicts.