To Plea Or Not To Plea?

So, Lindsay Lohan never accepted the plea deal offered by the Los Angeles District Attorney's office. And then lo and behold Judge Schwartz was kind enough to offer her another two weeks to consider an undisclosed deal. The problem with both deals are that they include jail time and have Lindsay Lohan admitting to a felony.

There are a few reasons why Lindsay is better not to cop a plea.

Firstly, there is a witness that has come forward to say that when he went into the jewelry store, and showed an interest in the necklace that Lindsay Lohan allegedly stole, he was told the price was $800. The man has contacted Lindsay Lohan's defense team; and is willing to testify to the fact. California law states:

California Penal Code 487:

Grand theft is theft committed in any of the following cases:

(a) When the money, labor, or real or personal property taken is of a value exceeding nine hundred fifty dollars ($950), except as provided in subdivision (b).

(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), grand theft is committed in any of the following cases:

(1) (A) When domestic fowls, avocados, olives, citrus or deciduous fruits, other fruits, vegetables, nuts, artichokes, or other farm crops are taken of a value exceeding two hundred fifty dollars ($250).

So as the item in question is a necklace and not a domestic fowl, avocado, olive, or a deciduous fruit the fact that the necklace is only worth $800 takes the charge from a felony to a misdemeanor; at the very most.

But we also have a few other facts to take into fact. The video surveillance:

It clearly shows the date as January 21, 2061. So, in court, is Deputy District Attorney Danette Meyers going to try and convince a jury that Lindsay Lohan travelled 50 years into the future and stole the necklace? Actually as a felony case it would actually be better for her to suggest this as the $800 necklace may indeed be worth $2500 in 2061. As evidence goes it is pretty worthless due to the incorrect date. As the date is so far out it could have been any time. No it is not the greatest defense in the world; but one of the jobs of a defense lawyer at trial is not only to prove innocence but also prove that the evidence that the prosecution has is worthless.

Then we have the actions of the Jewelry store. Kamofie and Co., of Venice, California have not only sold the surveillance footage to the Associated Press for $35,000 but have also indicated they will auction the necklace after the case concludes. Hardly the actions of a "distressed victim" of a felonious theft. More like the actions of a company wanting to "cash in". And it gets even more surreal when a representative from the jewelry store makes the following statement when Lindsay Lohan threatens to sue for the release of the surveillance footage; citing that she never gave them the right to use her image for profit: "We regret to hear there is trepidation by Miss Lohan in connection with the video. We hope that everyone understands that this is beyond our control, the flood of the requests to see this video were simply too overwhelming. It was truly necessary to put it out."

Beyond their control? Yes, maybe the release of the footage may have been out of their hands. But to sell the footage? No.

So, back to the original question, should Lindsay Lohan take a plea to a felony? Hell no. At the very most it was a misdemeanor. And at the very least it was an honest mistake.

And if you really want to get technical. The Deputy District Attorney and the Judge are pushing that this is also a probation violation. The question is why? Lindsay Lohan has not been found guilty of a crime; merely accused. Is it fair, or even legal, for the Deputy District Attorney and Judge in a case to basically say she is guilty without being found guilty? Now although the US Constitution does not actually say the immortal phrase "innocent until proven guilty" it does give a couple of provisions; such as the right to remain silent and the right to a jury trial; and that the jury be impartial. Nowhere does it state that you can be assumed guilty.

So, back to the question - To plea or not to plea? In this case the answer is obviously No.

And let's not forget that a theft usually involves some sort of loss. Kamofie & Co. have made at least $35,000 from the sale of the surveillance footage and will make even more when the auction of the necklace takes place.


Cuss Count: Zero

Legal Notice: This post is in no way offering legal advice; and should not be read as such. This post is not prepared in conjunction with any news agency or any other agency. Also this post was created without the sponsorship of Ferrari - seems the car has not arrived; nor is it likely to.


Anonymous said...

Great Job detective HNN the world needs more detectives like you Smiling

Post a Comment