March 24th, 2011
Hours after Lindsay Lohan nixed a plea deal that would have ended her felony theft case with a light sentence, her lawyer was talking a good game.
On Wednesday, Shawn Chapman Holley proclaimed her embattled client's innocence and declared that the train wreck will be acquitted by a jury.
"Ms. Lohan has maintained her innocence from the moment this case was filed and she has never wavered from that," Holley said in a statement.
"Although many people advised her to follow the safe route by taking 'the deal,' the truth is, Ms. Lohan is innocent; she has a strong defense."
"We are confident a jury will listen to the evidence fairly and acquit her."
Holley formally notified the DA that Lindsay wasn't going to be accepting a plea deal that would include jail time and opted to go to trial. At her preliminary hearing April 22, Judge Stephanie Sautner could remand Lohan into custody for violating probation as she awaits trial. Holley and Lohan must be confident this won't happen, however, because if it does, she'll do more jail time than if she'd taken the plea.
If Lindsay is innocent, then no probation violation would have occurred. So it's possible Sautner will allow her to remain free before trial.
We'll find out in a few short weeks. In the meantime, Lindsay will most likely act shady and continue to calm her nerves by partying.
What is the "strong defense"? That she was filmed on camera leaving the store wearing the necklace without paying or doing loan paperwork? Or that she returned the necklace to the police rather than the store? If I took something by mistake I'd go back right away and apologise. Time for Lindsay to learn that she may be "special" but she isn't special in any other way.
I like her new tweet, way to sound like a spoiled retard.
7:00am russian bazaar call times are just too much! i think i'm still going to be waking up in hair/make-up..but praise fashion+kellogs!
I'm not a lawyer (although I watched LA Law for years..) but this sounds rather optomistic to me...
Legal Experts Believe Lindsay Lohan Stands a Good Chance at Trial
This week brought an important development in Lindsay Lohan's ongoing legal saga: The starlet officially declared she would not take a plea deal, which would have involved some mandatory jail time, on felony grand theft charges for allegedly stealing a necklace from Kamofie & Company jewelry store. Instead, she will take her chances at trial. LiLo had already indicated that she wouldn't take any plea that involved jail time, so PopEater asked some legal experts to weigh in on whether going to trial is a good idea.
Gerald Lefcourt, a prominent New York attorney and past president of the Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, points out that the question of whether to make a deal or go to trial is the critical question in every case. "One of the toughest and most important decisions an accused faces is whether to accept a negotiated plea offer or take the risk of going to trial and have her fate decided by a jury. That decision is even more difficult in high-profile cases where concerns about damaging pre-trial publicity, public sentiment about the accused and the ability to find a fair and impartial jury predominate. Pleading guilty eliminates uncertainty and is often the best way to mitigate the risk of receiving a harsher sentence if convicted after trial."
That same logic prompted most of the media to take the position that Lohan ought to have quit while she was ahead and taken the plea while it was still on the table. But when it comes to this particular case, Lohan might fare better at trial, says celebrity lawyer Ed Hayes, who has represented everyone from Diddy to Robert DeNiro and was the basis for the lawyer character in 'Bonfire of the Vanities.'
Hayes says the first question to ask is: Did she do it? "I wouldn't take a plea if she didn't do it," he says. Hayes believes this case will hinge upon whether the defense is able to produce evidence that supports the claim that Lohan borrowed the necklace for a photo shoot or other event with the store's consent. "Suppose they get a stylist who comes to court and says, 'Lindsay brought me the necklace because we were gonna use it for a shoot, and I forgot to bring it back.' If that's the case, she's gonna get acquitted," he says, adding that if she has a legitimate defense, it shouldn't be difficult to prove.
And in all fairness to Lohan, that isn't such a radically farfetched idea. She may be an easy target, but the reality is that there are many reasons to believe that she may actually be innocent this time around. For starters, she had $3,000 in cash with her at the time of the supposed theft, which we know because on the same visit to Kamofie & Company, she made a cash offer on a ring for that amount.
Also, it has been widely reported that the store owners have been shopping a book deal about the episode. "Trying to sell a book deal based on a relatively minor shoplifting incident is really scuzzy," says Hayes. And it undermines the complainant's credibility, indicating that they're just in it for the publicity and possible payoff.
Hayes points out that after the alleged theft, Lohan made no effort to conceal that she had the item. She was even photographed wearing it afterward, which is what led to her arrest in the first place. "She wasn't hiding it, she was wearing it, and that's a reason to believe her," he says.
But even though there are valid reasons to believe she didn't do it, in a criminal trial the bottom line is whether the jury buys what you're selling. Hayes says that if Lohan misbehaves in court or appears to have an attitude, "she's not going to be very attractive to a jury, which is a big thing."
On the other hand, with the right jurors, she might come across as sympathetic. "I might put her on the stand and have her say, 'Yes, I've had a troubled life, I've had a d**g and alcohol problem, my life has fallen apart. But I didn't have any reason to steal that necklace, and I didn't do it,'" Hayes says.
So what would the ideal jury look like? Hayes would prefer men to women. "Women might not be as sympathetic to a troubled girl. Younger women might like her because of her celebrity status," he says, though they might also resent her for the same reason. "I'd also take the type of men who are naturally protective of young women. ... I wouldn't take, say, a banker or an accountant. I'd definitely take a social worker, a person who works in a store, a stylist. It would be great to have a stylist on the jury."
Well, perhaps if Lindsay is really lucky, she'll have someone like Hayes on the jury.
1) What is it supposed to be about? About fame? She is in the spotlight stealing or not stealing.
2) Store can say whatever they want, but it is not necessary true
3) The necklace could be lend, maybe?
3) If the victim is lying, it will be scuzzy
4) In the videotape I can see how the store lend Lindsay a necklace
5) Sorry for my English
Just when Lindsay Lohan thought her legal problems couldn't get any worse ...TMZ has learned cops are reigniting their investigation into allegations she attacked a Betty Ford staffer.
Sources connected to the investigation tell us ... in the last two days, the Riverside County District Attorney's Office sent investigators to meet with key witnesses who were with Lindsay on December 12, 2010 -- the night she allegedly got into a tusslewith Dawn Holland.
We're told cops told the witnesses they were conducting the investigation because the D.A. is still determining whether to pursue criminal assault charges against Lohan.
Sources tell us ... investigators wanted to know if the witness could testify if it was Lindsay or Dawn who was the "aggressor" during that fateful night. They also wanted to know if the witness could describe any sort of injury Dawn may have suffered during the incident.
We're told investigators also wanted to know if the witnesses would cooperate with authorities if the case went to trial ... but sources say the witnesses wouldn't give a definitive answer.