Facial profiling

HAIRY FODDER Rezko sports his pre-trial ’stache.

Photo: Associated Press/NAM Y. HUH

Drew Peterson and Antoin “Tony” Rezko have more in common right now than a former-Bolingbrook police sergeant with a questionable marital record and a Syrian-born businessman with questionable political ties probably should. Both men are manipulating their images in a curious way: By altering the amount of hair on their faces.

On a recent Today Show appearance, Peterson, who is a suspect in the disappearance of his fourth wife, debuted his new beard—a companion piece to the mustache he has worn for years. According to Peterson’s publicist Glenn Selig, the scruff is an important part of his client’s campaign to shake off his past media gaffes such as agreeing to participate in a Steve Dahl radio gameshow called “Win a Date with Drew.” (The show never happened.) “I think maybe the beard is a signal that Drew is a little bit of a changed person,” says Selig. “He looks different so maybe people will give him another look, another chance.”

Whereas Peterson added facial fur as a likeability plea, Tony Rezko, Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s indicted fund-raiser, has subtracted. In preparation for his first day in court last week, Rezko shaved off his caterpillarlike mustache—a move trial experts say is a calculated credibility appeal directed at the jury. “In the courtroom as in life, first impressions are everything,” says John Gilleland, a senior trial consultant for Trial Graphix, a trial- and jury-consulting firm. “And there has long been this idea that in court a clean-shaven face is just more credible.”

As Peterson is discovering, the repercussions of facial hair extend beyond into the court of public opinion. His bearded Today Show appearance has garnered some negative reaction, says Selig, adding he was against Peterson appearing on television with the beard. “Beards can often mean shady and unkempt,” he says. “I’m not a big fan of it, but I can’t make Drew shave. Though he did trim it at my request.”

AFTERSHAVE Rezko shows up to court with a clean upper-lip.

Photo: Associated Press

Like preparing for a TV appearance, before a trial such as Rezko’s, a lawyer often will “clean up” his client—shine his shoes, outfit him in a suit and make sure his face is shaven.

“Trial lawyers have an objective of increasing the likely credibility of any given witness,” says Philip Anthony, CEO of DecisionQuest, a trial consulting company that has worked on many high-profile cases, including the O.J. Simpson case. “Oftentimes a key variable is perceived stability or mainstream behavior. This means facial distractions, particularly beards and mustaches, need to be minimized so that a jury cannot focus on these ancillary issues.”

Especially at issue with Rezko’s mustache, say jury consultants, is that it underscored his “otherness” as a man of Syrian descent. “As a lawyer, you certainly don’t want to emphasize any of your client’s foreign attributes,” says Steven Merican, a veteran lawyer and cofounder of the Woodridge-based jury-consulting company Trialology. “You want your client to be as American as apple pie.”

According to Anthony, there is a hierarchy of facial hair types—some are worse than others. A goatee, he says is the worst. (“It has to do with the unusualness or the uniqueness of it,” he says.) And though a well-kept beard can appear professorial, a mustache is the most tolerable.

Rezko’s lawyers probably asked themselves, “Does a mustache affect credibility?” Merican says. “The answer is maybe. So if you worry it might, then why take that chance? Why have a handicap?”