I could depending on may factors. You mention O.J. as an example and who would want the burden of disclosure on that home for eternity. It will have a negative impact on the value for many years to come unless it is purchased by a commercial entity for purposes other than being a primary residence and what corporation would want that in the press? The online casino that seems to have bought everything unusual it could for the press seems to be out of that market. O.j.'s home in particular poses other issues than just the background of the owner. The fact that the "bloody glove" and other "evidence" was found there does not make it a comparison to the typical "celebrity" home.
Homes that have been featured on television or the movies pose many problems to a potential buyer that may have significant impact on the desirability of a residence. Frequent and unwanted traffic is but one issue that with effect the sale. Higher profile homes typically have higher profile buyers that also want to, as much as they can, protect their privacy. Something they must be willing to give up in many cases. Gene Simmon's home, The Hogan's homes get great exposure which may help when it comes time to sell but...will anyone see additional value in those homes for sake of who owned them? I wouldn't think so but, the exposure may help in the future.
As for homes of historical signifigance, who owned them in the past has more affect on the sale than who owns them now. Who wouldnt lean towards a home once owned by LBJ in Texas or Henry Ford in Floirda if a potential buyer were having to make a choice of like homes in either of the areas?
As for contemporary figures....I dont think there is a home that would increase in value only because of who owns it...yet could have significant negative impact if there were bad press about the current owner.
Great question Alicia!