Lindsay Lohan Preliminary Hearing Underway

By Jeralyn, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 12:57:18 PM EST
Tags: Lindsay Lohan (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Photo by SplashNewsOnline.

TMZ is reporting live on Lindsay Lohan's preliminary hearing on a felony theft charge.

Lindsay's lawyer, Shawn Holley, will be arguing the charge should only be a misdemeanor due to the value of the necklace at issue. Shawn had the necklace appraised: [More...]

Kamofie & Company set the price of the item at $2,500, but as TMZ first reported, they bought the piece for just $850. If the necklace is worth less than $950, the case cannot be filed as a felony but rather as a misdemeanor -- which would be a huge break for Lindsay.

According to TMZ, the first witness was a store employee who testified:

The employee Tinelli Comsooksri -- a salesperson at Kamofie since last July -- says Lindsay tried on a pair of $1180 earrings days before the alleged robbery ... and nearly left the store with one still in her ear by accident. Lindsay gave it back and apologized.

Doesn't acknowledging a prior similar incident that was an "accident" help Lindsay by showing a lack of intent to steal? (Not to mention, who tries to steal one earring?)

TMZ also says Lindsay may catch a break even if probable cause is found on the felony charge.

“Under the law, the judge has the ability to reduce a felony to a misdemeanor at the end of a preliminary hearing if the offense is relatively minor and the defendant is not a hardened criminal with a long record,” according to the report.

There are no cameras in the courtroom for today's hearing.

< The Politics Of Deficit Reduction | War on Drugs: Shifting Focus to Guatemala and Honduras >

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 Preliminary Hearing Underway | 25 comments (25 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Better outfit to be defendant in (none / 0) (#1)
by oculus on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 01:05:34 PM EST

a prelim. Good job, Lohan's advisors. Yes, the judge will reduce the charge to a misdemeanor. As I recall, it is the retail value, though, that determines the worth of the allegedly stolen item.

: I would imagine (none / 0) (#14)
by jbindc on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 02:48:32 PM EST

...it is the retail value, though, that determines the worth of the allegedly stolen item.
That to be the case, as a stolen necklace would also result in a lost profit for the store, which they are well within their rights to make.

I don't understand how Lohan (none / 0) (#2)
by MKS on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 01:16:13 PM EST

could have simply walked out of the store with the necklace without the store's consent.

Store employees watch this stuff like a hawk.....They generally have a security guard on site.

The only way for Lohan to have left with the necklace is if she had the store's permission....How that is robbery is beyond me.

Reminds me of Steve Martin's old (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by ruffian on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 03:20:51 PM EST

"I forgot" routine. gawd I love the internet - it is my 1978 memory bank...here is the transcript can't find video.

Relevant part;

You.. can be a millionaire.. and never pay taxes! You can be a millionaire.. and never pay taxes! You say.. "Steve.. how can I be a millionaire.. and never pay taxes?" First.. get a million dollars. Now.. you say, "Steve.. what do I say to the tax man when he comes to my door and says, 'You.. have never paid taxes'?" Two simple words. Two simple words in the English language: "I forgot!" How many times do we let ourselves get into terrible situations because we don't say "I forgot"? Let's say you're on trial for armed robbery. You say to the judge, "I forgot armed robbery was illegal." Let's suppose he says back to you, "You have committed a foul crime. you have stolen hundreds and thousands of dollars from people at random, and you say, 'I forgot'?" Two simple words: Excuuuuuse me!!"

Staff and/or security guard's (none / 0) (#3)
by oculus on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 01:19:07 PM EST

failure to stop alleged thief from leaving the premises w/the merchandise = lack of intent to steal? That's a new one.


Don't start. (none / 0) (#4)
by sj on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 01:56:17 PM EST

That's not what MKS said. Twisting his/her comments into what you just said is NOT a new one. It's an old trick.


My focus was on: (none / 0) (#5)
by oculus on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 02:00:16 PM EST

I know (none / 0) (#6)
by sj on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 02:11:21 PM EST

and it's a twisting of what MKS said which must be taken in conjunction with what followed:

The only way for Lohan to have left with the necklace is if she had the store's permission.

Neither you nor I live in the rarified world where clothing and jewelry can be taken out of the store "on loan". I admit it's a little unfathomable to me. But I accept that it's the case. I expect you know that.


Does MKS live in this (none / 0) (#7)
by oculus on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 02:15:02 PM EST

rarified world"? Just consider my comments as my opinion.


Wha??? (none / 0) (#10)
by sj on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 02:26:14 PM EST

We don't live in Tibet, either, but we know it exists.


: Ms. Lohan's jury of her peers will (none / 0) (#12)
by oculus on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 02:29:05 PM EST

need to be quite specialized.

No, but I visit it from time to time (none / 0) (#20)
by MKS on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 03:56:15 PM EST

I have ogled stuff at Tiffany's.....For fun, I have had the clerk bring out a nice pearl necklace, etc.....Not that I could buy it, you see....

The clerk is right there the whole time within two feet of the necklace.....The Security guard is there.....The cameras are there. These places are like a giant walk-in vault....

There is no way a clerk would foget about a necklace....

And, iirc Lohan was allowed to "test drive" other jewelry at home too....And this necklace at issue was bupkis at about 1k....The real fancy stuff, even the stuff I have looked at, runs into the tens of thousands of dollars....


Except (none / 0) (#13)
by jbindc on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 02:46:52 PM EST

MKS statement is not true, therefore the premise is false.

She could have left the store with the necklace if someone wasn't paying close attention. That does not imply the store gave permission.


That's true (none / 0) (#15)
by sj on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 02:51:44 PM EST

and not a dishonest reading.

Although, after walking around the store as long as she did while wearing it, one could argue that LL could justifiably assume that the store implied permission.


I don't think so (none / 0) (#16)
by jbindc on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 03:04:15 PM EST

I don't live this lifestyle, but for those who do and get jewelry to borrow from stores, they would know that there is stuff like paperwork to fill out.

And the shop owner testified that Lohan made no arrangements to "borrow" the jewelry, nor to pay for it.

Kaman said she would have stopped Lohan if she had seen the necklace. "Absolutely," she replied when asked the question.
Kaman testified that Lohan put her own necklace over the store's necklace. The store owner said she reported the alleged crime to police the next day after watching the security camera tape.
She said the necklace was acquired for $850 and sold for three times that amount, a standard industry practice. Her statement was elicited by the prosecutor in an attempt to undercut efforts by Lohan's attorney to drop the necklace's value to less than $950, making the alleged crime a misdemeanor.

And the clerk who testified that she had to remind Lohan a few days earlier about walking out with one earring in her ear also testified that she also emailed her bosses about the incident to let them know what happened.


: Okay (none / 0) (#22)
by sj on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 04:08:49 PM EST

will be mildly interesting to see this unfold.

Very, very unlikely to happen (none / 0) (#21)
by MKS on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 03:57:18 PM EST

There is video of the incident and the clerk apparently just let her walk out.....


As staff, it is your job to keep (none / 0) (#8)
by nycstray on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 02:20:09 PM EST

tabs on the merchandise when working with a customer. Wasn't their a photo of a smiling staff member holding the door for her as she left? Lohan could have forgotten to take off the necklace. It happens. And the 'blame' there would seem to lie with both parties and there was no 'intent'.


their sb there :/ (none / 0) (#9)
by nycstray on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 02:21:09 PM EST

: An enigma. (none / 0) (#11)
by oculus on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 02:28:08 PM EST

Donald. Agreed, but what Does Intent.... (none / 0) (#25)
by ScottW714 on Mon Apr 25, 2011 at 10:25:35 AM EST

... have to do with anything. I routinely put stuff in my pockets at the hardware store, if I forget something, will I get different treatment because my intent was to pay for it and I forget to ?

Surely not, if I walk out of the store w/o paying for something, my intent isn't going to matter because only one person knows my intent, and that person has a very good reason to lie about the intent.

I am tired of people guessing/assuming her intent, it's not as if other more famous and wealthy people haven't stole. People steal for a variety of reasons, and trying to decipher one's intent on stealing is a waste of time. She stole it, intentionally or not, she left w/o paying for it and just because her wealth exceeds most of ours shouldn't give her a pass.

If this was poor black man, no one would be discussing intent, because no one would care, but somehow a quasi-wealthy starlet's intentions matter in this particular case. What is the cut-off anyways on wealth and stealing anyways ? Seems like Madoff claimed he intended to return everyone's cash, and that didn't fly.

It wouldn't hurt if someone actually checked her finances either, maybe she's dead A broke, and if she is, apparently it would matter.


: Criminal intent... (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by kdog on Mon Apr 25, 2011 at 11:28:57 AM EST

is traditionally necessary in order to criminally punish though...but that kinda got thrown out the window in the "tough on crime" over-criminalization era of the late 20th-21st centuries.
Way back in the day it was considered morally wrong and unjust to criminally punish those who lacked criminal intent...aka the "criminal mind". I'd like to see a return to those more civilized criminal justice times.
Prosecutors used to have to prove the accused did it, as well as prove criminal intent...and thats how it should be, for every defendant regardless of wealth or status.
Like I always say, the answer isn't to treat everybody in the cj system like the poor black man, but to treat the poor black man and other proles more like the connected, the rich, the powerful. Thats the equality under the law we should be striving for, not equally being treated like dogs.

Stupidity knows no bounds (none / 0) (#19)
by mmc9431 on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 03:54:31 PM EST

Stupidity isn't confined to Hollywood. I still can't get over the ball player that was caught with six $10 T shirts at Macy's.

Why would anyone earning the money these people make risk it over anything as stupid as a necklace or a T shirt?

Court reduces charge to misdemeanor: (none / 0) (#23)
by oculus on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 05:32:10 PM EST

Court also stated it found sufficient evidence of intent to steal. Of course, the standard at a prelim. is really low.

: California Penal Code section 866: (none / 0) (#24)
by oculus on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 05:41:18 PM EST