Barry I. Slotnick, chairman of the New York Litigation Group at Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, was interviewed on the radio program Viewpoints on January 3, 2010. Viewpoints is a nationally syndicated public affairs magazine program heard each week on 360 commercial stations around the country. Slotnick was interviewed by Executive Talk Radio Producer Pat Reuter for the segment, "Celebrity Trials: How are they different from anyone else's?"

He was asked to explain what it's like to represent high-profile clients in the courtroom.

"When you walk into a courthouse with a celebrity client, everyone has opinions, they have feelings about that individual. You play to that strength, not the weaknesses. I walked into a courtroom with [a well known movie star]. He was loved, absolutely loved. And, I took advantage of that, presented him to the jurors as someone who is very special, someone who is caring and took his Hollywood character and put that on trial," Slotnick said.

Reuter went on to explain how Slotnick also defended subway gunman Bernard Goetz — accused in the 1984 shooting of four young men he thought were going to mug him on a train. Reuter asked Slotnick how he deals with a client who becomes well known because of a serious violent crime.

Slotnick answered saying, "By the time he got to trial, which was three years after the subway shooting, everybody knew who he was. That jury knew who he was, and it was clear that I had to play to whatever strengths he brought to me in the courtroom. Not the fact that he was a shooter, but the fact that he was an innocent person who was on trial who was put in jeopardy in fear of his life."

Reuter went on to explain how Slotnick says he watches jurors' body language to try and figure out how they're leaning. "Slotnick says that finding out that a juror is not a fan of the defendant doesn't necessarily mean defeat. He says a good defense attorney will find a way to make the juror put aside any bias and look at the evidence," Reuter reported.

Slotnick explained one such scenario saying, "I tried a very major celebrity case a couple of years ago in which my client was acquitted. … There was one juror who I was really concerned about because I had run out of challenges and I had no choice but to accept this juror on to the jury. I thought she was going to be my toughest and contrary advocate, and I was right. They acquitted, and when I walked out I talked to this juror and said, 'You know I was concerned about you.' She said, 'You had good reason to be, but I understood the meaning of reasonable doubt.'"