``I respect both of the attorneys are completely honorable. They requested confidentiality. I certainly, I don't even tell my wife what's going on. So I can't understand how they find out this information. I'm just, please respect the confidentiality nature of these agreements. It's not fair for either side to have these things leaked out in dribs or drabs. It's not right. Cases should be litigated in court, in a courtroom, so then everybody can hear what's going on. It doesn't benefit anybody, so please try as our understanding was to keep whatever offer I made confidential.''
In the event Lindsay decides to take the plea bargain, the judge instructed Lindsay's lawyer to file it under seal, "for his eyes only."
Lindsay is between a rock and hard place. Since the preliminary hearing on the felony theft charge for the necklace will be heard the same day as her probation violation complaint (April 22), it's possible that if bound over on the theft charge, she will be jailed immediately for the probation violation, and have to remain in jail without bond pending trial on the felony.
If Lindsay takes the deal, she must decide and appear in court on March 25. That leaves two weeks for her lawyer, Shawn Holley, to try and tweak the deal.
Question: Why is the judge making plea offers at all? Isn't that the province of the District Attorney in the executive branch? I suspect he didn't really make a plea offer to Lindsay, but rather, told both sides how he intended to sentence her if she accepted the prosecution's offer.
Why does this matter? Because Shawn Holley may still have a chance to get a better plea offer from the D.A. The Judge then gets to accept or reject it.
Some plea offers call for a specific sentence. Others specify a minimum sentence. Others leave it up to the judge entirely.
Perhaps Lindsay could admit the probation violation, in exchange for which, the prosecutor would agree to delay sentencing and not ask that Lindsay be jailed pending trial on the theft charge, if bound over at the prelim.
To sweeten the pot for the D.A., perhaps Lindsay would agree both to admit the probation violation and waive her preliminary hearing, in exchange for not being jailed pending trial.
The Judge seems willing to tell the parties in advance whether he'll agree to their plea terms. If he gives his stamp of approval, Lindsay would be able to stay out of jail on bond pending the theft trial.
If she's acquitted at trial, surely she wouldn't face jail for a probation violation based on the theft. (Unless California has a statute to the contrary.) And if convicted at trial on the theft charge, she's going to do time anyway, so what's a little more for the probation violation? And perhaps the judge would make the two sentences run concurrent rather than consecutively.
All I'm saying is Lindsay is not out of options. I don't pretend to know California law -- for example whether a finding of guilt on a probation violation requires immediate revocation and immediate sentencing and precludes other options -- but these kinds of deals are made every day across America. People admit the probation violation and the judge finds probation has been violated. The judge can then allow them to continue on probation, or revoke or terminate probation. A jail sentence may or may not be imposed.
If the Judge in Lindsay's case is serious about treating Lindsay the same as everyone else, something he has said a few times, he should take care not to treat her more harshly than others just because she's Lindsay Lohan.
