There's a recurring theme in both American fiction and actual American history, of playing to the crowd in legal situations. And, at times, it can actually work wonders. Trying a criminal case "in the court of public opinion" can make its own mark on history -- no matter the outcome of the actual court case. Think: the Scopes Monkey Trial. Or John Brown. In both cases, the public eventually wound up on the side that actually lost the case in court (Scopes lost, and John Brown's body wound up "a-mouldering in the grave" after he was executed).

Unsurprisingly, this theme has been reflected many times in popular culture. Three movies sprang immediately to my mind, when considering the subject. The first is graphically violent and brutally portrays how even a pair of vicious serial killers can use the media's appetite for this theme to great effect: Oliver Stone's Natural Born Killers. The second is a lot more lighthearted and uses musical numbers to create its own condemnation (or celebration?) of the power of the media to warp a court case beyond all recognition: Chicago. And the third one is my personal favorite of the three, because it is either a total spoof or an absolute farce (take your pick), which as a bonus also features a cameo from Patty Hearst: Serial Mom, from director John Waters.

All three of these movies are similar in their theme, though -- the ultimate resolution of the case is often influenced greatly by what the media and the resulting public opinion have to say about it. There's even a whole new universe of true-crime podcasts dedicated to reviewing old cases, for the specific purpose of changing public opinion about them. In at least one prominent case (that of Adnan Syed), a wrongly-convicted prisoner has even been freed by these efforts.

Of course, there is a reason why I decided to write about this today, since we are at the dawn of what could possibly be one of the biggest examples in American history of using the force of "the court of public opinion" to an accused criminal's advantage. If Donald Trump is indicted by a New York grand jury -- and if he is further indicted by either a Georgia grand jury or the federal government for other possible crimes -- then we are going to see the first ex-president attempt to sway the public into believing his own particular version of events, no matter how farfetched they may be. And you've got to admit, Trump is a master at pulling the wool over people's eyes when it comes to this sort of thing -- which has so far allowed him to largely escape any serious consequences for his own actions in life.

Everyone admits this reality, and the current argument among the political punditocracy is whether being indicted will hurt or actually help Trump's campaign for the Republican nomination for president. The corollary question of whether it will help or hurt him win the general election is usually also included, but not always (since the primaries will be first, the question of his chances in them are more immediate).

At this point I really couldn't say either way, since the Republican electorate has become such a nearly-impenetrable thicket of conspiratorial thinking. Trump has primed a goodly number of Republican voters to believe pretty much anything he says about anything -- no matter any concrete evidence to the contrary -- so even if he is subject to multiple criminal trials, there's a portion of the country that will believe he is innocent of everything just because he says so.

How many Republicans will actually vote for Trump, when it comes time to do so? It's tough to say, especially seeing as how he hasn't even been indicted once yet (and absolutely anything could happen between now and primary season), but the answer might just turn out to be: "enough to give him the nomination." As I said, Trump is a master of media manipulation. And his followers are already well-primed to fully believe him over pretty much anything or anyone else.

Or the opposite could happen as well. Even Republican voters who buy into Trump's eternal victimhood schtick may be so tired of his political baggage and antics that they are willing to bet on another horse -- one they think might actually have a better chance of winning the White House. It could easily go either way, which is why the pundits are having so much fun kicking the subject around.

Of the fictional examples I used, one of them (Natural Born Killers) doesn't even concern itself with any actual trial, it is purely about the manipulation of the media and the public to frame a bloody-minded couple's killing spree as almost the resurrection of Bonnie and Clyde. But in the other two, the quite-obviously-guilty defendants successfully manipulate public opinion all the way into the jury box, where they win acquittal. Both are comedies, as their storylines are played mostly for laughs (dark laughs, but laughs nonetheless). Both are funny precisely because they are so uncomfortably close to the reality of some actual court cases.

Will Donald Trump weasel his way out of conviction by an endless barrage of "Witch-hunt!" cries? It certainly worked well enough for him in both of his impeachments, but those "trials" were always going to be political in the first place, being held in a Senate with enough members of his own party to block conviction. For any indictments that may be coming, though, he'll be tried in front of a real jury. And that's a whole different ballgame.

I have no doubt that some Republican voters will go to their graves believing that Trump's clam of being the "most persecuted president in all of American history" is the God's honest truth and that he couldn't possibly have done any of the things he has been accused of. I know this will be a fact no matter what any jury has to say about it or what evidence is presented. Trumpism is closer to a religious cult full of brainwashed followers than it is to any sort of normal political movement, after all.

Trump has already begun his first fusillade of attack in the battle that will be waged over his fate in the court of public opinion. And even if convicted in multiple jurisdictions and imprisoned, I fully believe that none of it is going to stop his presidential campaign. There is no requirement for a presidential candidate to have a squeaky-clean legal record, and not even one that bars a person currently residing in jail from running (which has happened at least twice in American history: Eugene Debs and Lyndon LaRouche). The only thing which could derail the Trump campaign train is if he is actually convicted of crimes from the January 6th insurrection -- and then the 14th Amendment is utilized to bar him from running for any political office in America. This is probably a longshot, since all of that would have to happen in record time for it to influence the 2024 election.

Having a former president -- much less one who is running for nonsequential re-election -- criminally charged and tried in a court of law is a unique experience for America. The closest we've ever come to this previously would be either Richard Nixon getting pardoned by President Gerald Ford or Aaron Burr being tried for treason at the Supreme Court after an order for his arrest was issued by President Thomas Jefferson (Burr, like Trump, was a private citizen at the time, since this all happened after he had served as vice president). That's not a lot of precedent, but even if there were any more such instances I have no doubt that any indictment and subsequent trial of Trump will be completely unprecedented in any number of ways.

The first of which we're already seeing. It comes as no surprise because it is Trump's go-to standard operating procedure: counterattack, viciously. As viciously as possible. As loudly as possible. On any grounds that pop into Trump's head at any time -- he knows if he throws enough of it at the wall, eventually something is bound to stick with the public. As with his impeachments and as with all the other myriad times he's been in (civil) court, Trump knows there will be two battles, the one in the actual courtroom and the one in the court of public opinion. Which means this is going to likely be a long and very bumpy ride.

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant