What Message Does Lindsay Lohan’s Four Hour Jail Stint and Casual Body Language Give to Young People?

by Dr. Lillian Glass

The fact that Lindsay Lohan has just been released from a 30 day jail sentence after four and a half hours sends a horrible message to young men and women. It says that you don’t have to be accountable for your actions and that you will get away with it. Body language wise she appeared relaxed after her sushi dinner the night before, as she entered the jail, knowing full well that she most likely would not be there very long.

Her nonchalant body language gives a clear message that you can chose bad behavior and it will all work out fine because of who you are.

Even if the jails are overcrowded in Los Angeles, in my view they needed to find a space especially for Lindsay to do the time. This was not her first time, her second time, her third time, or her forth time. She needed to be held accountable.

Seeing how she can get away with everything will not help her life in the long run.

Lindsay came to court with her puffy lip trout pout and arrived at the jail with her stylish high fashion makeup, complete with what looks like a double set of lashes and the latest designer clothing . It appears that is nothing but mere a PR showcase for her . There is no remorse for her continued bad and entitled.

Lindsay has been in jail five times already and she is still in her twenties. This is NOT a good sign. Unless she gets major counseling and deals with the underlying cause that stimulates her aberrant behavior ,she is headed for more of the same as she ages. Trouble will follow her forever unless he gets to the root of her troubles- her parents.

There is no question that the root of her problems have a lot to do with her parents in my view. Last week her father ended up behind bars for the sixth time. For violating a restraining order and for alleged abuse. An enabling mother and an out of control father may very well be contributors towards her acting out.

But like her dysfunctional and forgiving parents, Hollywood is also forgiving, especially if there is money to be made. It seems that money will be made with a full frontal nude photo shoot for Playboy.

It seems that those who have been able to insure her for a film also believe they will make money. But the reality of this is that if the Playboy magazines don’t sell or the films in which she appears don’t sell, there is no next time for Lindsay.

After all , in Hollywood, you are only as good as your last gig and if it doesn’t go well, neither will your career. But then there is always the “comeback” as Hollywood loves a good comeback story a la Robert Downey Jr.

While she may have “lucked out” and beat the legal system for now, in the long run as history has shown us, bad behaviors do have a way of finally catching up with people.

Even though it may be disturbing to see her skirt justice and watch her entitled body language , it may be short lived.

Tweet

Does Lack of Desire to Prosecute Matter for Prosecutors Deciding Lindsay Lohan's Fate?

by Robin Sax

TMZ reported today that the Palm Desert Police Department has turned its investigation over to the Riverside County District Attorney's Office,  who will decide whether to charge Lindsay Lohan with battery.

They went on to say, “The case would be an uphill battle, because alleged victim Dawn Holland says she will not cooperate and does not want Lindsay prosecuted." But do prosecutors really think lack of cooperation makes a case unprosecutable? The answer is no.

In California, the only crime in which a victim has a legitimate say in whether or not to cooperate is in sexual assault cases. A victim's desire to prosecute or not may be relevant to the decision by the prosecution on whether they file charges, but it is not outcome determinative. Victims of a crime are merely witnesses to a case. They are not a party to the suit. The D.A. is, therefore, not their lawyer, nor do they have the client decision rights that one would have in a civil case.

Frankly, as a prosecutor, sometimes a non-cooperative witness is the best type. There is no better way to prove a case than to show that the witness is under the power and control of an influential person. A non-cooperative witness could have been paid off,  wayed, or influenced by other pressures. A skilled prosecutor will use examples of controlling behavior and even a change in stories to show the power and sway of the defendant. Then, they will take statements during the heat of the crime and early in the reporting as a method to impeach the witness, prove the power and control and the underlying case.

The early reports and statements (as opposed to the ones on the stand) are usually viewed as most honest and telling because they are often made before a witness has a chance to lie, fabricate, or be swayed.  As such, if Dawn Holland lies, those early reports will come in to impeach her and to corroborate the true version of the facts.

It will be interesting to see if the D.A. in Riverside determines that the lack of desire to prosecute holds here, when they regularly prosecute domestic violence cases, gang cases, and other batteries when the victim is undesirous. I know, because I worked in that exact office in addition to my time in LA.  And the most successful cases were the ones where the victim did not want to be there--no issues of an axe to grind, no issues of falsifying charges to 

gain advantage in some other case.

I am not saying that this case is the strongest in the world, nor am I saying that Dawn Holland is either a good person or a good employee. As a matter of fact, her blabbing to the media and HIPPA violations are worthy of the loss of her job and the punishment that is likely to come.

Still, the bigger questions remain, regardless of the Dawn Holland incident. Why  in the world did Lindsay not take a drug or alcohol test?  Why was she out past curfew? Why even be in a situation that reeks of a violation?

There is only one answer that makes sense and it's not really news. The reality is that Lindsay Lohan is an addict. Addicts are desperate and will do desperate things, including battering someone to cover up their use and abuse. The only thing that remains  to be seen is can Lindsay Lohan get out of her own way, help herself and get some control over her terrible addiction and demons?

Tweet

My Top 8 Stories of 2010

by Robin Sax


Eight cases, why not? Everyone else can do a Top 10 list -- here are my Top 8 from 2010:

8. Casey Anthony going to trial 

In the case of Casey Anthony,  the mother who allegedly murdered her child Caylee, the jury will want to know how a mom, an attractive, normal woman, could do such a thing to her own daughter. The most damning evidence against Casey Anthony -- the reason, the answer to why she might murder her own daughter, the smoking motive: she didn't want to be a mother anymore.  Anthony wanted to party and be free, and so researched a murder method (chloroform) and went ahead and got rid of her daughter one mile from their home. Sounds like an awful scenario. But it may very well be true. That Casey Anthony is a party girl who killed little Caylee in favor of a liberating, carefree life is not a new theory. But the jailhouse letters and inmate interviews support the idea that she was too young to have a kid and could not hang with being a mom, that she wanted freedom from everything, and that she was willing to do absolutely anything to get that freedom - including murdering her 2-year-old baby. This case may top the list for next year when it goes to trial.

7. Bruce Beresford Redman's wife's murder

Beresford Redman, former Survivor producer, went on vacation to Cancun with his wife, who was found strangled to death adjacent from the Moon Palace Resort. Factors that tend to show that he is guilty: the 3 different life insurance policies he took out on his wife's life within 3 months, including the accidental death and dismemberment policy; witnesses that will attest to fighting the night before her mysterious death; a weak, if not lame, excuse that she went shopping but whoops didn’t bring a cell phone and left at 8:30 am (who does that in Cancun while on vacation?); scratch marks on his neck; inconsistencies in his accounts and the accounts of witnesses; need I go on?  Face it people, we live in a judgmental society. We size people and situations up all the time. We draw conclusions over cocktails, in lunchrooms, and in op-ed pieces, like this one.  I say Bruce (and Richard) it’s time to think of a new PR strategy because this one isn't working! We'll see what happens.

6. Mitrice Richardson murder -- any closer?

This 24-year-old Cal State Fullerton graduate mysteriously vanished after walking out of the Lost Hills Sheriff's station nearly three months ago. According to the Los Angeles Times, authorities believe that Mitrice had gone without sleep for as many as five nights before she was arrested for not paying her bill at a Malibu restaurant. They think she may have had a major mental breakdown, including possibly suffering from bipolar disorder. This begs the question, why didn't anyone at the Lost Hills sheriff's station notice anything strange about Mitrice's mood and behavior? Tragically, the body of Mitrice was found this year (she went missing in September of 2009). Richardson's body was found naked, and her bra and jeans were found apart from her body. The search is still in motion for her killer. 

5. Mel Gibson and Oksana domestic violence blow-up/out

After the details of the January 2010 domestic abuse incident surfaced against Mel Gibson, and the taped rant and tirade were released, the incident chills down the spines of even the most hardened people. No one thought Mel would survive the abuse against Oksana Grigorieva, his girlfriend and mother of one of his children. It seemed clear to all he was going down this time, at least in PR if not as a criminal. To make sure I was not missing something, I called a few of my detective buddies at Lost Hills Sheriff's station back in January and found that they concluded as similarly as I -- that Mel Gibson committed a crime against Oksana and if it were any other person, he or she would have been arrested on the spot. The evidence, when compared to that of a typical domestic violence case, was overwhelming. A report from Oksana, taped calls corroborating Oksana’s words, a suspect clearly afflicted with anger among other issues, medical records and statements consistent with the injuries, and another victim who says similar crimes have happened to her. But the tides shifted to disbelief of Oksana and the case virtually died out. It's unlikely that we'll see much justice in this case.

4. John Gardner confession to killing Chelsea King & Amber Dubois 

How could a man who admittedly molested a 13-year-old girl in 2000 serve only five years in jail when he could have served 30? How could he wind up living yards away from an elementary school? In this case, there are lots of questions but only one answer: It should have never happened. There is no excuse, justification or mitigation that can comfort the King or Dubois family for the murder and rape of their beloved daughters. These are deaths that simply could have been avoided. I participated in a press conference and rally this year to help shed light on the horrible parol system in California that could allow this kind of monster out on the streets. Where is the public outcry on this parole supervision crisis? Where is the accountability? Why are these parolees not being properly supervised and monitored by parole agents? Where is the governor of the State of California on this? Why do these parole administrators continue to have their jobs? Shouldn't they be held accountable for these resulting disasters? How many more innocent people have to be murdered for the department to make changes? How many more innocent victims have to suffer at the hands of roaming parolees?

3. Lindsay Lohan saga

Lindsay Lohan has an appetite for destruction. What can we learn from the recent media blitz on Lindsay Lohan besides just a baffling dose of "why" when watching all of her legal debacles? You may expect me to come up with some hidden message or special lesson here but sometimes the obvious is the hardest to digest. The lesson from LiLo's case: don't drink & drive.  I would like to use my platform and big mouth to rant a little about the issue of driving under the influence. Most of you reading this probably have driven home buzzed at some point in your life. Don't do it again. It's not worth it. Just call a cab or a friend if you have had too many drinks. Not only because you don't want to go to jail like our Ms. Lindsay, but because you want to prevent tragedies. Life is too short. We see that Lindsay did get some celebrity justice but, sadly, there doesn't seem to be enough of time on these celebrity news shows to discuss the dangers of getting a DUI and how rampant, and deadly, the practice of drinking and driving is.

2. Human Trafficking on Craigslist and other sites

Websites like Craigslist, MySpace and MyRedBook have facilitated and spurred new growth in child/human trafficking and prostitution within the United States. The Internet has made it possible for pimps and traffickers to sell and solicit children from thousands of miles away. Savvy online criminals can easily pick up at-risk children and runaways through social networking sites. Craigslist seems to be at the forefront of the online solicitation of children in America, and indeed came under fire in 2010 for this practice. Craigslist CEO Jim Buckmaster said any ad on Craigslist that enables human trafficking and child exploitation is completely unacceptable and that his company works tirelessly with law enforcement to help stop the attackers on their site ... really? Well, I think we will be hearing a lot more about the Craigslist site in 2011. Tragically, human trafficking of children for the sex industry is a rapidly growing domestic crisis. Yes, here right in America!

1. Ronni Chasen's murder mystery

The police are convinced that the shooting of Ronni Chasen, a wealthy and respected Beverly Hills publicist, was not a professional hit and that 43-year-old Harold Martin Smith acted on his own with the motive being a robbery, albeit a botched robbery. But there have been a ton of rumors and speculation. It is possible that all the premature speculation generated too many unanswered questions to what really happened to Chasen on November 16. Some questions, that are harder than others, contradict Beverly Hills Police Department statements that 43 year old ex-con Harold Smith rode his favorite bike to commit an armed robbery with Chasen the random victim. BHPD will hopefully come forth very soon with convincing information to legitimize their theory that this was not a merciless contract murder that took the life of this vital member of the entertainment industry. Until then, the questions remain. Rest in peace, Ronni Chasen. We will continue to press on as we know you would have. 

Tweet

Celebrity Justice?

by Robin Sax

Celebrity justice: is it an oxymoron?  Do celebrities get justice?  Do they get treated better?  Do they get treated worse?  Most people believe that celebrities get preferential treatment with shortened sentences, easy plea deals and the like.  The New York Daily News, supporting this view, has provided its findings as proof that celebs do the crime -- they just don’t do the time.  

The site offers various examples of recent celeb cases where the jail sentence was cut short: Paris Hilton, in 2007, was sentenced to 45 days in jail, but released after four days; Lindsay Lohan, in 2007, was sentenced to four days in jail but released after 84 minutes; Nicole Richie, in 2007 was sentenced to four days in jail but released after 82 minutes; Michelle Rodriguez, in 2008, was sentenced to 180 days in jail but released after 17 -- you get the idea. 

But is this really a factor of stardom, or is everyone getting a break these days?  Plenty of non-celebs  get their jail time curtailed because of jail overcrowding and other factors. It's important to remember celebs aren't the only people do less time then sentenced. However, it's hard for the general public to digest this, because everyday-Joe cases aren't covered 24/7. 

Paris Hilton Mug Shot

Preferential treatment is sometimes defined or viewed as reverse discrimination. It occurs when a person receives a benefit because he/she is of a certain societal or economic status, or has another categorization making them "special", such as a Hollywood or media star. Because preferential treatment rarely rises to the level of discrimination, it can be very difficult to prove that a person is actually receiving better treatment based on his/her celebrity status.

There exists a popular notion that celebrities who are accused of crimes are more likely to be acquitted or receive lighter sentences than non-celebrities.  According to empirical research from studies by the The Law and Society Association, the status and authority of a defendant can indeed influence jurors’ decision-making processes. This social power sometimes translates into favorable treatment in the courtroom. But some celebrities'  fame  may work against them. In other words, the preferential treatment celebrities were found to receive in a courtroom or jail setting might not translate exactly to lighter legal treatment -- as is often thought.

What celebrities get is different treatment. And really, is that entirely wrong? I think everyone would readily agree that while there should be uniformity and consistency in court, the unique situation of any person's case could require a change in protocol or policy.  As a former prosecutor, I saw this all the time. While the sentences I would seek for defendants were uniform and objective, I always balanced the defendant's history and situation -- which may have lead him or her to the life of crime; you also must include and weigh occupational and educational backgrounds. The fact is that while everyone likes black-letter law and rock solid rules, that's not always possible to execute. In some cases it's just plain impractical and, frankly, unjust.

Lindsay Lohan Mug Shot

The perception that stars get special treatment persists and is being fed by the recent incarceration of LiLo. We are hearing all about Lohan getting her own cell, extra time in the infirmary, use of TV and Internet, specialty foods, newer/nicer clothes, extra guards, private phone use, extended visiting hours, isolation from the other prisoners, and more. But what else can we do with a celebrity likely to be target for other inmates, the public, and the media? Part of the sheriff's department's responsibility is protecting inmates. 

The celebrity courthouse circus is sometimes cited as a drain on the criminal justice system because of the extra costs of special treatment. But by definition, a celebrity is someone who is different from and fascinating to the general public. Their fame means they're subject to more intense scrutiny and require different protections. They usually give up their private lives in exchange for our adoration (and the need more security measures). 

We have political stars, Hollywood stars, music stars, sports stars, even news-media stars, and now reality-TV stars who've all had run-ins with the law. The recent media interest in Lindsay Lohan and in the Michael Jackson /Conrad Murray case, though, have surpassed the interest in other celebrity legal-ins of recent memory (Martha Stewart, Robert Downey Jr., and Hugh Grant come to mind). Of course, most will say -- and I agree -- the OJ Simpson trial solidified our fascination with celebrity justice.

Mel Gibson Mug Shot

So do celebrities receive special treatment in court? Does the expression "duh" mean anything to you? But, again, special is not necessarily preferential. When a celebrity is due to appear in court, authorities have to use extra safety precautions to protect the celebrity, courthouse employees, and the general public. They may need to request additional sheriff deputies;  provide extra security for the public; assign extra clerks for taking the minutes (because of the extra scrutiny); and use more District Attorney resources and staff time overall.  

Precautions use different resources when a celeb goes to jail rather than just a courthouse appearance. For example, a motorcade took Lindsay Lohan to jail -- probably necessary, but definitely costly.

There are also cases in other courtrooms, on other judges's calendars, that can't be moved just because a high-profile person is facing one judge, whether for a brief hearing, a full trial, or sentencing, on a particular day. The constitutional rights of all defendants mean the court has to keep certain dates, so there is no way to actually shut down the courthouse completely. 

However, to the extent that a judge has discretion over that particular day's case load, he/she may postpone everything possible. Criminal courts are open to the public (whereas family courts, as in Mel Gibson's family court case, are closed to the public), so celebrity criminal cases mean it will take more time for the public and news media to file in and out of the courthouse. Approximately 20 percent of all judges's court hearings will likely be rescheduled on the day of a celebrity appearance to allow for the extra time needed.

In a way, a celebrity court hearing could be looked upon as a burden on the justice system (in both financial and logistical terms); however, nothing is going to change that fact so long as there is still such strong public interest in celebrity trials. It's important to remember that not all celebrity cases involve Hollywood stars. In some cases, celebrity is actually notoriety. For example, in the cases of Joran van der Sloot and Philip Garrido, they not celebrities per se, but their crimes were so horrific and intriguing that public interest has elevated the status of the case to that of a celebrity trial. 

Not so widely discussed is the public benefit of celebrity justice. For example, the public will become more educated about the justice system, and the trials can be used as deterrents for bad behaviors ... as in, don't get a DUI, for starters, and then, duh, don't violate the terms of your probation -- or you will go to jail (Lindsay!).

When celebrities break the law, they may sometimes be given extra resources or attention from the criminal justice system because of their star status -- but it is mostly because the public interest necessitates the special treatment. It is very much a Catch 22: you can't have stars without setting them apart from the rest of society, but you can't have true equality in the justice system if some individuals are set apart. We do the best we can and hope that in the end, the punishment will fit the crime, regardless of who commits it (fingers crossed)!

Tweet