Can somebody with a law degree please explain to me how the fuck the jury is deadlocked in this case?
And while you’re at it can someone please explain to me how the fuck a case about whether or not someone had a California license goes to a jury?
I know there’s a bunch of confusion about where her primary residence was, etc, etc, but OMG do you know how much a jury trial costs tax-payers? And we’re doing this to decide whether or not Britney — who was a licensed driver — had her damn license in the correct state?
Because I’d just like to let it be known that I parked illegally this weekend. So we should probably convene the United Nations. Just an FYI.
NO WONDER OUR ECONOMY IS COLLAPSING.
The public must be protected.
“Britney Industrial Complex” is what’s keeping our economy afloat…..that’s why they hung the jury. You are welcome. :)
Oh and shame on you. Tsk, Tsk, Tsk.
Umm, didn’t you say just the other day that Britany refused to plead guilty? I think that you had better ask her why she is wasting tax payer money belaboring the obvious.
Yeah, yeah, yeah about the jury deal, but check out that weave. Good GOD.
I think she didn’t plead guilty because it would have meant a stronger mark on her record than was warranted. Honestly, this isn’t on her as much as the prosecutor trying to be all tough and shit. Well, asshole, do it with the DUI twins, etc.,…not having a valid CA license, but having a valid license from elsewhere did NOT warrant this fiasco. In this, I’m with Britney’s attorney. Why should she plead guilty when anyone else would have basically walked with a what is tantamount to a fix it ticket. It’s because of who she is. Sometimes that works for them, unfortunately, but sometimes it’s just for show for someone trying to make a name.
Got to go with the DA is a dumbass.
Nope, don’t have a law degree….just a damned common sense degree.
Oh, and I slept at a Holiday Inn last night….;-)
I have a law degree. But not in California, and they have very different laws than most states. With that said, it’s usually a slap-on-the-wrist kind of charge. Maybe tacked on to a DUI for aggravating factor purposes. Or it’s charged as a threat, and then you go get a license, and then they dismiss it. These prosecutors seem overly enthusiastic.
This kind of minor trial, even with a jury, usually only takes a few hours and doesn’t cost too much. Her “team” is probably over-lawyering it and making it last longer.
I guess I just don’t understand not pleading guilty when you are guilty. Her defense is that she is legally a resident of Louisiana, and I don’t think that is a valid legal argument. All the states require people who move to get a drivers license in their new state of residence after a transitional period of time. When she refuses to plead guilty, does the prosecutor have any other option than to proceed to trial? And if the police officer who pulled her over let her go without a ticket, don’t you think people would have been howling about how unfair it was that she got off because of her celebrity? The law doesn’t always make a lot of sense, and sometimes you just have to make the best of a lousy situation, and pay the damn fine.
dude tigerlille where are you from? guilty people pretty much always plead not guilty. in like almost every case ever.
Why should you plead guilt just because you know you are– The system really doesn’t have anything to do with fairness or justice or what’s right. The system is about evidence–the proof of it , the strength of it. So you’d be really doing yourself a disservice if you plead guilty just because you know you are when you are given an opportunity to be innocent until evidence proves you otherwise in a court of law. Your social conscious might want to save tax payer money–and just pay the fine, but someone who did far worse than you–guilty as sin–won’t be as kind–and insist on their rights. You lose out–get what’s coming to you, and he–guilty as sin– just might suck up all the money and get off Scott free.
The prosecutor has the discretion to drop the case, or at any time plea bargain it–if the strength of his case isn’t up to par. The thing is if you insist on going to trial when the prosecution does have a strong case–they resent it and might be less flexible than before–like ask for the actual six months jail sentence. Which is great for the media frenzy (and the economy) but bad for her health, image, and future child custody problems. I’m guessing that’s why she’s sticking to her guns. The prosecution knew they had a strong case and wouldn’t budge on it. Her lawyers think that they can just make this go away with their long but clever stretch of an imagination argument.
quick….somebody get ‘The Rural Juror’ onto this……..stat!!
that lisa- you are partly right, everyone always pleads not guilty at first- but then they come at you with a deal and you plead guilty so you don’t have to have a trial that will prove you are guilty and result in a harder sentence.
tigerlille- you are totally right- that is the only reason there is a jury trial, because she wouldn’t take the deal they offerred (probably a fine or something) which she should have just shut up and PAID already.
(i come by my knowledge first hand, being a california resident with 4 felonies and 2 misdemeanors. . .)
Thankfully, the case was dismissed.
Hey, I just hopped over to your site via StumbleUpon. Not somthing I would normally read, but I liked your thoughts none the less. Thanks for making something worth reading.
Now is the time for meditation upon the concepts in respect to.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on pay money. Regards