Lindsay Lohan Released With Stern Warning

By Jeralyn, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 05:47:23 PM EST
Tags: lindsay lohan (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Lindsay Lohan was charged today with felony theft and violating her 2007 DUI probation. She appeared in court and pleaded not guilty. (Background here.) She was released after being booked and posting bond, $20,000.00 for each charge. The judge gave her a stern warning -- if she gets arrested while on bond, he will keep her locked up.

You're in a different situation now that a felony has been filed against you...If you violate the law, I will remand you and set no bail...A felony is a different situation and you're not entitled to bail.

The judge indicated plea negotiations would be taking place before the next hearing. TMZ's video of the judge speaking to Lindsay is here. Here's what she wore to court.

I doubt she'll end up with either a felony on her record or significant jail time. Her biggest problem may be avoiding new allegations while these charges are pending. She seems to be a magnet for them. [More...]

Update: TMZ is reporting Lindsay's lawyer, Shawn Chapman, told the DA last week that Lindsay would be willing to take a lie detector test. I doubt that's the whole story. Shawn Chapman is a terrific lawyer. She would only bring up a lie detector if Lindsay had already passed one given by her own expert polygrapher. The results aren't admissible in evidence, so it only would have been offered to dissuade the DA from filing charges. Cal Evid Code § 351.1:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the results of a polygraph examination, the opinion of a polygraph examiner, or any reference to an offer to take, failure to take, or taking of a polygraph examination, shall not be admitted into evidence in any criminal proceeding, including pretrial and post conviction motions and hearings, or in any trial or hearing of a juvenile for a criminal offense, whether heard in juvenile or adult court, unless all parties stipulate to the admission of such results.

It may be that Shawn presented the DA with the results of a polygraph Lindsay had already passed and the DA wasn't dissuaded. Or, knowing Lindsay had already passed an independent poly, Shawn offered to have Lindsay take one by the state's polygrapher. But without favorable results at least in her back pocket, I doubt Shawn would have made an offer to have Lindsay submit to DA's polygraph.

< My Gang Will Get You | Republican Chris Lee Resigns After Exposure of Craig's List Dalliance >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Lindsay Lohan Released With Stern Warning | 26 comments (26 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Lohan (5.00 / 0) (#10)
by jbindc on Thu Feb 10, 2011 at 01:20:54 PM EST

Is willing to entertain a plea deal if it means no jail time.

Of course, she also maintains her innocence.

She wouldn't be (none / 0) (#12)
by sj on Thu Feb 10, 2011 at 02:22:11 PM EST

the first innocent party to accept such a deal. Not saying she is or isn't innocent. Just saying that innocent parties are often pressured to accept such a deal because the penalty if convicted is so much harsher.


Yes (5.00 / 0) (#13)
by jbindc on Thu Feb 10, 2011 at 02:32:52 PM EST

And it wasn't a commentary on her declaration of innocence (even though some around here will read that into my comments) - just adding information to the story from the link.

But hey - I'd accept a plea deal for grand larceny if I was a movie star with lots of money and assured of no jail time too.


Why stop there? (none / 0) (#14)
by sj on Thu Feb 10, 2011 at 02:37:33 PM EST

I'd accept a plea deal for grand larceny even though I'm NOT a movie star with lots of money, and would be assured of no jail time, too.


Having (5.00 / 0) (#16)
by jbindc on Thu Feb 10, 2011 at 02:43:35 PM EST

"Lots of money" is the key, I think, to tide you over until you get paid an obscene amount of money for "your story".


: Pity that (none / 0) (#18)
by sj on Thu Feb 10, 2011 at 02:45:15 PM EST

That "having lots of money" has greater weight than actual innocence, you know?

Thats the game... (none / 0) (#19)
by kdog on Thu Feb 10, 2011 at 02:45:40 PM EST

take the plea or roll them bones with a jury. Innocent? Guilty? What does that matter in the halls of injustice...

I'm waiting on the day when the stern warners get a stern warning.


Interesting (none / 0) (#20)
by jbindc on Thu Feb 10, 2011 at 02:53:03 PM EST

Then that you want the banksters, Bush admin, et al to face the criminal justice system!


: Different rules different fools... (none / 0) (#22)
by kdog on Thu Feb 10, 2011 at 02:58:40 PM EST

is the greater sin.
Besides, it may take the above the law crowd getting a taste of how we get "served" to see some changes...and stop being the embarassment of the "civilized" world with our over-caging, over-prosecuting, over-legislating arses.
Celebs, or at least young female celebs, recently being tossed in with the proles is no consolation.

having said that (none / 0) (#15)
by sj on Thu Feb 10, 2011 at 02:43:30 PM EST

I'd rather never be charged with a crime. But just not committing one is no guarantee of that.


: Stop that crazy talk! (5.00 / 2) (#17)
by jbindc on Thu Feb 10, 2011 at 02:43:49 PM EST

One, she is no longer a (none / 0) (#21)
by Anne on Thu Feb 10, 2011 at 02:57:13 PM EST

"movie star;" she hasn't had decent work in some time, much less star-quality work. And I wouldn't even call her a "celebrity" anymore - she's crossed over into notoriety, I think.

Two, she doesn't have "tons of money;" I know this has been pointed out before, but it bears repeating.

She got here, in large part, as a result of her own actions, and because she no longer has work, and she's an object of ridicule in the media, and carrying the legal weight of probation, she is in the uncomfortable position of having many fewer options than she might otherwise have, which is also why she may be considering a deal.


Sigh (5.00 / 0) (#23)
by jbindc on Thu Feb 10, 2011 at 03:02:07 PM EST

she is in the uncomfortable position of having many fewer options than she might otherwise have, which is also why she may be considering a deal.

Yes, which was the point. When you are a celebrity like she is (and she still is), and you get chance after chance after chance to get your act together, and you don't take advantage of all those "second chances", then at some point, a responsible person (like the judge) will have to say "Enough is enough."

Yes, I think she sees her window is finally closing.


jbinc (none / 0) (#24)
by Jeralyn on Thu Feb 10, 2011 at 06:21:14 PM EST

You are chattering on Lindsay Lohan, see the topic rules. You are limited to four comments per day on the topic and have already exceeded this amount.

Please find a site more compatible with your views on crime issues. I'm not interested in giving your predictable chatter a platform.


: meant the comment rules (none / 0) (#25)
by Jeralyn on Thu Feb 10, 2011 at 06:21:49 PM EST

here

This sentence seems backward to me. (none / 0) (#1)
by oculus on Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 06:41:29 PM EST

She seems to be a magnet for them [new allegations].

Surely some personal responsibility falls upon Ms. Lohan.

: if the allegations are not true (none / 0) (#2)
by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 06:59:00 PM EST

why does she need to take responsibility? They are just allegations at this point.
She's back from a long rehab and been in compliance with her drug testing since her release. That shows she is taking responsibility.

Here is what she wore.... (none / 0) (#3)
by Key on Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 07:08:12 PM EST

Really? Who cares what she wore? In fact, who cares about the whole issue? How does it relate to the "Politics" of crime?

Even the Chris Lee stuff is pushing it. Sure, there's politics involved, but crime?

Gossip. Lots of gossip.

I've no problem with anyone blogging any of this stuff, but it doesn't really fit with the blog, and kind of brings it down a bit.

Then again, it's your blog so you have a right to do what you want. And I suppose I don't have to read it if I don't want to. Although then I'd miss all of BTD's great posts....

If you aren't interested (none / 0) (#4)
by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 11:33:35 PM EST

scroll on by and read BTD, although he's tied up with work this week. In the meantime, I will respond to your criticism -- this one time. I don't want to take the thread off topic (Lindsay) so if you want to write more about TL, please do it by sending me an email.)

In case you are new here, I write about things I find interesting on any topic. Since it's my blog, I get to choose and nothing is off-topic. You get to choose whether to read what I write or not. My post titles are always direct as to the topic. And while nothing is "beyond the scope" of the blog, Lindsay clearly fits in the "crimes in the news" category. (As does Paris Hilton when she gets in trouble.) There is always "politics" involved when it comes to prosecuting a celebrity. Some will say Lindsay is receiving special treatment, others that she's being treated too harshly because of it.

As for what she wore, TMZ during its live coverage at the courthouse, couldn't stop talking about how inappropriate her dress was for court. Harvey's take (and he is a former lawyer and the head of TMZ) was that the dress showed she wasn't taking the charge seriously. They replayed the five seconds of her walking into court at least five times to point it out. I didn't see the problem with her dress. (Neither did his on-air co-commentator.) I posted the photo so readers could decide for themselves whether she dressed disrespectfully. What a defendant wears to court is not irrelevant. (By the way, you may want to skip TL on Oscar night when I always do a red carpet thread with photos.)

Similarly, Christopher Lee's resignation is relevant because we now have one less Republican in the House -- and from my point of view, that means one less Republican to cast bad votes on crime issues.

As I said, if you want to discuss this further, please do it by e-mail, not in comments. Back to Lindsay....anybody else have an opinion on her outfit?


No problem with her outfit (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by sj on Thu Feb 10, 2011 at 12:19:35 AM EST

Sure she could have worn a buttoned up suit, but that would have likely generated criticism that she was being phony. If you're going to get flack, then wear what you want. She's not flashing flesh so where is the inappropriateness?


Although she has a wonderful figure, (none / 0) (#5)
by oculus on Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 11:35:37 PM EST

I don't think wearing that figure-hugging dress was her best choice for court. Looks like her nails were appropriate this time, though.


it looks like a nice sweater dress (none / 0) (#8)
by nycstray on Thu Feb 10, 2011 at 10:18:34 AM EST

modest neckline, natural makeup, hair pulled back simply and small pearl earrings. looks thought out (advised) to me. most of what the court would see would be her sitting and that dress would not be a lumpy mess . . .


Looks like 2% spandex to me. (5.00 / 0) (#9)
by oculus on Thu Feb 10, 2011 at 12:11:48 PM EST

: This is California, correct? (5.00 / 0) (#26)
by Towanda on Thu Feb 10, 2011 at 06:21:53 PM EST

That seems like a low spandex percentage for La-La Land. Now, that dress would be a bad choice if she chanced to get in trouble in my part of the land. But for California, she's covered up well -- and in virginal white, yet!

Good Morning America... (none / 0) (#7)
by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 10, 2011 at 09:26:36 AM EST

... claimed that she sent the jeweler or jewelery store flowers, which triggered her getting banned from the store.

Is that witness tampering or just really stupid, and can they use that is court to show remorse or intent of a crime ?

Polygraph : what she was asked... (none / 0) (#11)
by Yes2Truth on Thu Feb 10, 2011 at 01:39:38 PM EST

would go a long way in suggesting what her defense is likely to be.

What do TL folks think she was likely asked?