The recently concluded trial of popular rapper Cardi B brought into focus a pressing challenge for modern courts. Far from being mere celebrity drama, the trial showcased how social media can upend the seriousness of judicial proceedings. Throughout the trial, snippets of Cardi B’s testimony went viral across several social media platforms. Questions about her pregnancy, fingernails, and wigs were clipped and shared millions of times, turning what should have been an ordinary cross-examination into an internet spectacle.[i] Social media quickly turned this trial into a source of entertainment, raising questions on how courts can better balance public access and fair proceedings.
Former security guard Emani Ellis (“Ellis”) brought the lawsuit against Cardi B, accusing the rapper of assault. Ellis claimed that the rapper cut her cheek with a fingernail and spat on her outside a doctor’s office in 2018.[iii] Although she acknowledges that the two engaged in a profanity filled argument after Ellis revealed information regarding the rapper’s private appointment, Cardi B denies ever assaulting Ellis.The rapper explained that prior to the argument she overheard Ellis disclosing her pregnancy, which was not yet public knowledge. Cardi B’s account was supported by several witnesses who testified that they saw no scratches on Ellis and suggested that Ellis had been the aggressor.[v] However, these details were not what garnered social media attention, rather it was clips of Cardi B responding to questions regarding her wigs, fingernails, and pregnancy that captured widespread attention. These clips, stripped of the context, spread like wildfire across the news and social media. By the time the jury began to deliberate, the internet had already turned Cardi B’s cross examination into a viral meme.
This raises a serious concern: How can jurors remain impartial when a case is simultaneously being discussed on social media? The Constitution guarantees criminal defendants the right to an impartial jury, but courts have recognized that the same principle applies in civil proceedings where fairness is at stake.[vii] Extending this protection reflects the broader understanding that impartiality is central to the legitimacy of all jury trials, regardless of whether the case is criminal or civil. This connection underscores the limits of traditional safeguards like voir dire, sequestration, and jury instructions, which struggle in an era where news spreads instantly to millions worldwide.[viii] These measures were not designed for such speed and scale. The Cardi B trial shows how social media erodes the line between courtroom procedure and online entertainment.
Courts rely on a variety of safeguards to keep jurors focused on the evidence before them.[ix] Whether it be questioning jurors during voir dire to uncover bias or instructing jurors to avoid outside information, these methods are meant to ensure jurors are not tainted by outside influence.[x] In the past, this meant setting aside a newspaper or turning off the news. Now, social media is in every aspect of our daily lives, meaning jurors can stumble upon viral clips without ever searching for them.[xi] Social media blurs the line between accidental exposure and deliberate consumption. Accidental exposure may occur when an algorithm pushes content regarding a trial onto a juror’s feed, while deliberate consumption reflects a juror’s conscious choice to seek out information and content regarding the case. Although the intent is different, the effect is largely the same: Jurors are influenced by content that has not been admitted into evidence. Both kinds of exposure erode impartiality, demonstrating why traditional safeguards struggle to contain the reach of social media.
What jurors encounter online rarely captures the proper context of what is truly happening in trial. Viral videos show only the most dramatic or amusing moments, omitting important facts. In Cardi B’s trial, social media users saw clips about her “real” hair, but few paid attention to the questions linked to the issue at hand.When jurors are exposed to these viral videos, they are more likely to form impressions based on what is viral or public opinion rather than the evidence presented in the courtroom. This accidental exposure undermines the purpose of trial safeguards, because even if a juror follows the rules, they may still carry public perception into the deliberation room.[xiii]
The issues related to viral coverage also arise in the context of undermining attorneys. Lawyers spend weeks preparing for trial, yet in a world where social media is so prevalent, a single awkward moment can overshadow all their hard work. Cardi B’s viral testimony may have targeted witness credibility or proving an element, but out of context, those questions shaped perceptions of the attorney as unprepared.If lawyers fear any mistake may become the next viral meme, the manner in which they advocate for clients may suffer. Lawyers are expected to zealously advocate for their clients,[xv] not worry about how TikTok may edit their cross-examination. The Cardi B trial is a reminder that social media can affect not only the way jurors see a case, but also the way lawyers practice in the courtroom.
While the Cardi B trial resembles celebrity gossip, it reveals a deeper problem for the justice system in the digital age. When trials unfold online and in the courtroom, the integrity of jurors and lawyers alike is put at risk.[xvi] Viral videos distort facts, shape juror perception, and hinder trial advocacy. Courts must adapt safeguards in order to adequately protect jurors from the realities of the modern digital age. This could be as simple as expanding voir dire to include questions regarding social media usage, strengthening jury instructions to explicitly address consumption of digital content, or even limiting juror access to devices and social media during trial. Without reform, future cases risk being decided based on the influence of viral media, rather than by the evidence or governing law.
[i] See Lisa Respers France & Elizabeth Wagmeister, Cardi B Found Not Liable of Assault Allegations in Civil Case, CNN (Sept. 2, 2025), https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/02/entertainment/cardi-b-civil-trial-verdict [https://perma.cc/34NE-MCKU].
[ii] See Charna Flam, Cardi B Found Not Liable for Assault of Former Security Guard in Civil Assault Trial, People (Sep. 2, 2025), https://people.com/cardi-b-found-not-liable-for-assault-in-civil-assault-trial-11802319 [https://perma.cc/97CA-P7G4].
[iii] See Regan Morris, Jury Clears Cardi B of Assault on Security Guard in Los Angeles, BBC (Sep. 2, 2025), https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgjyj0dp3ego [https://perma.cc/K3U6-4FJT].
[iv] See Sophie Flay & Leanne Suter, Rapper Cardi B Found Not Liable for Assault, Damages in Civil Case Involving Security Guard, ABC 7 (Sep. 3, 2025), https://abc7ny.com/post/rapper-cardi-found-not-liable-assault-damages-civil-case-involving-former-security-guard/17724304 [https://perma.cc/JJ5R-U3GJ].
[v] See Doha Madani & Phil Helsel, Cardi B Cleared of Assault Allegations in Civil Trial, NBC News (Sep. 2, 2025), https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/pop-culture-news/cardi-b-cleared-verdict-assault-allegations-civil-trial-rcna228604 [https://perma.cc/M6E8-QKWM].
[vi] See The Impact of Public Opinion on Criminal Trials, McCready L. Grp. (Nov. 20, 2024), https://zacharymccreadylaw.com/blog/the-impact-of-public-opinion-on-criminal-trials [https://perma.cc/FLP6-4SRM].
[vii] See Regina Stuart, When Technology Threatens the Right to an Impartial Jury, N.Y. State Bar Ass’n (Dec. 1, 2023), https://nysba.org/when-technology-threatens-the-right-to-an-impartial-jury [https://perma.cc/6ZFV-4CSN].
[viii] See Jacob A. Kistler, Twitter Taint: Content Questioning Voir Dire in the Modern Age of Social-Media-Addled Venires, 31 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 659, 673 (2024).
[ix] See Stuart, supra note vii.
[x] See Juror Selection Process, U.S. Cts., https://www.uscourts.gov/court-programs/jury-service/juror-selection-process [https://perma.cc/3KK8-LGG3] (last visited Oct. 2, 2025).
[xi] See Ryan P. Deane & Jade N. Tran, Strategies for Overcoming Challenges Presented by the Impact of Social Media on Juries, Wood, Smith, Henning & Berman (Feb. 6, 2025), https://www.wshblaw.com/news-strategies-for-overcoming-challenges-presented-by-the-impact-of-social-media-on-juries [https://perma.cc/39D6-QFWQ].
[xii] See Noor Nanji, “Which One is Your Real Hair?” Why Cardi B’s Wigs and Nails Baffled Lawyers in Court, BBC (Aug. 29, 2025), https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cr5r01jdpqjo [https://perma.cc/DX7S-DA2B].
[xiii] See Rebecca Melnitsky, Social Media Can Change Outcomes in the Courtroom, N.Y. State Bar Ass’n (Oct. 24, 2023), https://www.kentuckylawjournal.org/blog/trial-by-tiktok-social-medias-attack-on-juror-impartiality [https://perma.cc/9RA9-TU2G].
[xiv] See Melanie Nguyen, What the Cardi B Trial Teaches Plaintiffs’ Lawyers Not to Do, Stritmatter L. (Sep. 3, 2025), https://www.stritmatter.com/cardi-b-trial-lessons-lawyers [https://perma.cc/GWD2-WUCB].
[xv] See Mod. Rule of Jud. Conduct r. 1.3 cmt. (A.B.A. 2020).
