If Paris Hilton was a Redhead

[David Koot]

the $100 plus fees lawyers charge per hour.

Now its up to three bills an hour, and the meter keeps ticking. But as for plea bargains, of course that happens all the time. When I had a practice, one of my clients was charged with multiple felonies, and I sat down with the deputy DA and we bargained it way down. This guy wasn't a fancy-pants, either. Blue collar. I am just saying that Paris' plea bargain didn't have to be the result of dad's money.

[CyberGuy]

Originally Posted By: CyberGuy

the $100 plus fees lawyers charge per hour.

Now its up to three bills an hour, and the meter keeps ticking. But as for plea bargains, of course that happens all the time. When I had a practice, one of my clients was charged with multiple felonies, and I sat down with the deputy DA and we bargained it way down. This guy wasn't a fancy-pants, either. Blue collar. I am just saying that Paris' plea bargain didn't have to be the result of dad's money.

Yeah $300 an hour is what I heard to. It is expensive to get a good lawyer but it is far better to get a good lawyer than the free ones the state provides. They do not alwsys get you the best deal possible.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Shane, that is fully bogus. Anyone who has been significantly involved in the court system will know better. CyberGuy has, and I have.

I have been sitting around AA rooms for over 21 years and can count the number of DWIs dropped to reckless driving I am aware of on one hand and in each of those cases it happened because a high-price lawyer was involved.

[CyberGuy]

Quote:

Shane, that is fully bogus. Anyone who has been significantly involved in the court system will know better. CyberGuy has, and I have.

I have been sitting around AA rooms for over 21 years and can count the number of DWIs dropped to reckless driving I am aware of on one hand and in each of those cases it happened because a high-price lawyer was involved.

I agree that highpriced lawyers do get one off to a lessor charge. So what?. If one can afford a high priced lawyer then by all means get one when one needs it.

My uncle's girlfriend changed him with assault and battery which was untrue. The DA offered him a plea bargain where he would have to go to jail for three years but he could be out in 18 months OR if he goes to trial 9 years prison sentence.

My uncle know he was innocent and in the pretrail his highpriced lawyer shot down the testimony of the woman making the charges with proof from Xrays and doctors testimoniesand even got the woman to contradict her statement she made to police at the time of the charge, until the DA just decided to drop the charges. It cost my uncle $30,000 but he did not have to go to jail for something he did not do.

So yes a high priced lawyer can get you off to a lesser charge. But that is allowed by our legal system. If you can afford it why not take advantage of it. Wouldn't you if you had legal problems? Is it fair to hold that against people who can afford the high priced lawyers and are rich?

[Dr. Shane]

I have had legal problems and I was innocent too. A lawyer that attends our church handled my case and the charges were dropped due to lack of evidence. That is not the point.

I don't believe very many people charged with DUI/DWI are innocent and hiring high price lawyers to get keep them free. A police officer pulls them over, they either take a breathalyser and fail or refuse to take it because they know they are drunk. The cases are not too hard for prosecutors to win and there is little reason for them to want to plea bargain.

In Paris' case, she lost her license and continued to drive anyway. In essence she was refusing to accept the lighter punishment she received when she in fact deserved a more severe punishment to begin with. She was snobbing her nose at the justice system. It is good that she has been put in her place.

[CyberGuy]

I have had legal problems and I was innocent too. A lawyer that attends our church handled my case and the charges were dropped due to lack of evidence. That is not the point.

I don't believe very many people charged with DUI/DWI are innocent and hiring high price lawyers to get keep them free. A police officer pulls them over, they either take a breathalyser and fail or refuse to take it because they know they are drunk. The cases are not too hard for prosecutors to win and there is little reason for them to want to plea bargain.

In Paris' case, she lost her license and continued to drive anyway. In essence she was refusing to accept the lighter punishment she received when she in fact deserved a more severe punishment to begin with. She was snobbing her nose at the justice system. It is good that she has been put in her place.

Yes then you know how invaluable a good lawyer is. I have not had the need for one yet but if I do you bet I will be using one even if I have to take out a second mortgage to pay for one. Why because prosecutors are bullies. They will try to bully you into a harsher plea bargain even if their case is weak to non existant. A high priced lawyer will shoot holes in those charges over time and will force to the DA to back down to a lessor charge or back off entirely.

In Paris case I do not know the exact details but I think it was because she was driving without her headlights on that was the result of the reckless driving.

Now how many people here have driven out of a well lighted garage onto a well lit street and did not realize their lights were off? I have been guilty of that. I would guess a great many have. Now if that is the reason for the charge then 45 days in prison is STUPID.

[Dr. Shane]

My understanding is that she was charged with DUI and the charge was reduced to reckless driving. Those charged with DUI/DWI normally get pulled over for something minor. Sometimes they get pulled over because they stop at a green light. That is typical behavior of a drunk driver. Driving without headlights on is also typical behavior of a drunk driver as is not using the turning signals.

[CyberGuy]

My understanding is that she was charged with DUI and the charge was reduced to reckless driving. Those charged with DUI/DWI normally get pulled over for something minor. Sometimes they get pulled over because they stop at a green light. That is typical behavior of a drunk driver. Driving without headlights on is also typical behavior of a drunk driver as is not using the turning signals.

Ok. I checked on the internet and she was charged with a lessor alcohol related Reckless driving instead of felony DUI. So it still was related to the driving while drunk just a lessor misdemeanor charge.

In Paris case she was driving on a suspended license in relation to the Reckless driving. She was sober when she was pulled over driving with her headlights on.

[Planey]

Just a note. I see sometimes the system there is called "the legal system" and sometimes another poster may call it "the justice system".

Please restrict yourselves to the first nomenclature. From the descriptions given in this thread so far, there seems to be very little "justice" in this system. Anytime when the verdict may be different based on whether you can afford a high-priced (read "competent") lawyer then the whole shebang becomes a function of how rich you are. This can in no way be termed "justice".

Graeme

[CyberGuy]

Just a note. I see sometimes the system there is called "the legal system" and sometimes another poster may call it "the justice system".

Please restrict yourselves to the first nomenclature. From the descriptions given in this thread so far, there seems to be very little "justice" in this system. Anytime when the verdict may be different based on whether you can afford a high-priced (read "competent") lawyer then the whole shebang becomes a function of how rich you are. This can in no way be termed "justice".

Graeme

It is unfortunate that is the way our legal system works. There are loopholes in the law that a highpriced Competent lawyer will exploit also to battle with the DA for a lessor sentence under the threat to go to court otherwise. In a case where the DA knows he is on shaky legal ground Or knows he may spend years getting the case to trial based on the wealth of the defendant the DA will agree to a lessor charge just to get the person on SOMETHING.

Still we must not hold it against the more well to do who can afford those high priced lawyers. Hold it against the State who has all sorts of stupid laws they can get the average person on. Many have nothing to do with justice or protecting the people.

[Dr. Shane]

Please provide me the name of the nation where the poor and rich are both afforded the same level of defense. I understand our system is lacking in many ways, as I have gotten caught in it, I still think it is among the best in the world. In my specific case, had I been in Mexico I would have likely spent a lot of time in jail. As it was, I was only in jail for one night although my case drug out for nearly two years.

[CyberGuy]

I think there should be a law where IF you win your case the State has to reimburse you for your legal fees. That should discourage DA and Prosecutors from charging people unless they are certain they can win. This would make it more fair.

[Doug]

I think celebs get treatment like this because people in authority don't want to be labeled as the "person who destroyed celebrity X's career by jailing them". If I were a judge I wouldn't care 2 sticks. Don't do the crime if you don't want to be punished. Paris and nearly all celebrities can afford to get driven around after they get smashed.

[CyberGuy]

I think celebs get treatment like this because people in authority don't want to be labeled as the "person who destroyed celebrity X's career by jailing them". If I were a judge I wouldn't care 2 sticks. Don't do the crime if you don't want to be punished. Paris and nearly all celebrities can afford to get driven around after they get smashed.

I think there is more to it than that. It is very hard to convict a celebrity. Look at the OJ trial. Look at the Robert Blake Trial. I saw on Court TV a case where a rich beautiful celebrity and her nephew were tried for murder of her husband and the evidence was strong but she was so charming and beautiful and was smiling at the jury the whole time that the jury aquitted them both. When the reporters asked the police when they will get the real criminals the police answered,"We did get the real criminals but the jury would not convict. This case is closed."

So even if you were a judge what good would it do if a jury will not convict the celebrity?

[David Koot]

When the reporters asked the police when they will get the real criminals the police answered,"We did get the real criminals but the jury would not convict. This case is closed."

Ehrm, that is called 'libel.' If that happened in real life, they could sue the City or County for a pretty hefty amount. I suspect the cop who would say such a thing might also get in a bit of trouble with the department. Such a statement would appear to ignore the rule of law.

[bevin]

In the English legal system it is possible to award "costs" to the defendant when they are innocent - or to the prosecutor when the defendant is found guilty...

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section14/chapter_o.html

The Court can order the defendant to pay such costs as it thinks "just and reasonable". The Practice Direction states that an order should be made where the defendant has the means to pay.

[CyberGuy]

Originally Posted By: CyberGuy

When the reporters asked the police when they will get the real criminals the police answered,"We did get the real criminals but the jury would not convict. This case is closed."

Ehrm, that is called 'libel.' If that happened in real life, they could sue the City or County for a pretty hefty amount. I suspect the cop who would say such a thing might also get in a bit of trouble with the department. Such a statement would appear to ignore the rule of law.

It did happen in real life but 41 years ago in 1966. The TV show was "Power, Privilege and Justice" on Court TV. Yes it is a true story with video from the case.

Here is the show.

The Candy Scandal

When a small town Southern belle named Candy Mossler married the millionaire banking magnate Jacques Mossler, it seemed to be a Cinderella story come true. Of course, after she engaged her nephew, Melvin, in a steamy affair, and Jacques turned up dead, it was safe to say that the fairy tale had soured. When Candy and Melvin were arrested for murder, the media circus that exploded around the case was commensurate with any high profile murder case that happened to include millions of dollars, illicit sex and the hint of incest. But atypical for a case like this was the extraordinary work of legendary defense attorney Percy Foreman. Despite all the evidence pointing towards the young couple’s guilt, could Foreman get them acquitted? TV-14

http://www.courttv.com/onair/shows/dunne/episodes/the_candy_scandal.html

[CyberGuy]

Defendants: Candace Mossier and Melvin Lane Powers

Crime Charged: Murder

Chief Defense Lawyers: Henry Carr, Percy Foreman, Walter E. McGwinn, Marian Rosen, Harvey St. Jean, and Clyde Woody

Chief Prosecutors: Richard E. Gerstein, Arthur E. Huttoe, and Gerald Kogan

Judge: George E. Schulz

Dates of Trial: January 17-March 6, 1966

Verdict: Not guilty

SIGNIFICANCE: Millions of dollars were at stake in this trial, one of the most sensational in years. There was talk of sexual variations, suspected contract-killers, and police corruption in this tale of greed and brutal murder.

For 12 years Candace and Jacques Mossier lived together in seeming harmony. Mossier, a multimillionaire Houston, Texas, businessman, lavished attention and money on his beautiful wife and was rewarded with her apparent devotion, until 1961. In that year, Melvin Powers, Candy Mossler's 20-year-old nephew, came to live with the couple. Not long afterwards, according to Mrs. Mossler's testimony, Jacques Mossler was struck down by a mysterious illness that left him a homosexual. Shattered by this discovery, Candy Mossler turned to her sister's son for companionship, despite their 21-year age difference. When Jacques Mossler found out, he fired Powers from the company and moved to Miami, Florida.

Candy Mossler and Melvin Powers remained in Houston until the summer of 1964, when she took her four adopted children to visit her husband in Florida. Once there, she began chauffeuring the children on a series of suspicious midnight car rides. On June at 1:30 A.M. she drove them to a nearby hospital emergency room. Just minutes later, someone broke into the Mossler household, struck Jacques Mossler over the head and stabbed him 39 times. The murder time was established by neighbors who heard loud barking from the MossIer's dog, and cries of "Don't! Don't do that to me!" A "dark-haired man in dark clothing" was also seen fleeing. Police believed that man was Melvin Powers, acting in collusion with Candy Mossler. The couple was charged with murder 12 months later.

Jury selection began January 17, 1966, and took several days. At its conclusion Arthur E. Huttoe presented the state's case against Candy Mossier and Melvin Powers, detailing a "sordid, illicit, love affair." The motive, Huttoe said, was money: with her husband out of the way, Candy Mossier would inherit millions plus control of his business.

http://law.jrank.org/pages/3145/Candace-Mossier-Melvin-Lane-Powers-Trial-1966.html

[Bravus]

Quote:

...struck down by a mysterious illness that left him a homosexual

snort

[CyberGuy]

Quote:

...struck down by a mysterious illness that left him a homosexual

snort

Hey that is what the web site says. Shrug

[Planey]

Quote:

• ...that left him a homosexual

My uncle left me a push-bike and a bookcase.

Some guys have all the luck.

Graeme

[Bravus]

lol @ Graham, and an 'oh yeah, I wasn't snorting at you' to CyberGuy

[Dr. Shane]

Maybe the CDC should investigate that illness.

[CyberGuy]

LA Times reported that out of 2 million cases they reviewed about 1500 were of similar cases to Paris Hilton. Average time in jail for those cases was 4 days BUT for Female non violent first time offenders they were booked and then released with NO JAIL TIME.

Paris Hilton is serving the same amount of time as violent offenders in Drug abuse cases and assult cases.

In other words the LA Times concluded that Paris Hilton is being punished more harshly BECAUSE she is a celebrity.

This is what I have been saying all along. Glad the LA Times agrees with me.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-me-paris15jun15,0,863712.story?coll=la-home-center

[CyberGuy]

Hilton will do more time than most, analysis finds

By Jack Leonard and Doug Smith, Times Staff Writers

6:56 AM PDT, June 14, 2007

Paris Hilton will end up serving more time behind bars than the vast majority of inmates sent to L.A. County Jail for similar offenses, according to a Times analysis of jail records.

Whether Hilton received special treatment from the Sheriff's Department has become the subject of much debate since Sheriff Lee Baca last week allowed the hotel heiress to go home after less than four full days in jail, despite a promise that she would serve 23 days of a 45-day sentence.

The Times analyzed 2 million jail releases and found 1,500 cases since July 2002 that — like Hilton's — involved defendants who had been arrested for drunk driving and later sentenced to jail after a probation violation or driving without a license.

Had Hilton left jail for good after four days, her stint behind bars would have been similar to those served by 60% of those inmates.

But after a judge sent her back to jail Friday, Hilton's attorney announced that she would serve the full 23 days. That means that Hilton will end up serving more time than 80% of other people in similar situations. (She was transferred late Wednesday from the Twin Towers jail in downtown L.A. to a women's jail in Lynwood).

The findings came as some critics accused Baca of showing favoritism to Hilton and as the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors launched an investigation into whether the multimillionaire received special treatment because of her wealth and fame.

The data also underscore the profound effect of the Sheriff's Department's early-release program, which sets inmates free before their sentences are up to ease overcrowding.

Before the early-release program began in 2002, inmates with cases similar to Hilton's were sentenced to terms that amounted to an average of 23 days, the same as Hilton is expected to serve. They actually served 20 days. After the program began, the average term was 14 days, with inmates actually serving an average of four days.

Because of the high media interest, Hilton was one of only a few inmates whose premature release received publicity — and the judge who originally sentenced her noticed. She is believed to be the first inmate in years who actually was sent back to jail to serve more of her term.

"Twenty-three days would be considerably more than the average person given her sentence would actually serve," said Stan Goldman, professor of criminal law and procedure at Loyola Law School. "The jails are so overcrowded that even though overcrowding is not the reason for her release, it colors every release decision from the jails system."

Baca's release of Hilton because of undisclosed medical problems touched off a storm of protest. Last year, the department released only three inmates on medical grounds, a spokesman said.

One of the most vocal critics, civil rights activist Najee Ali, said Wednesday that Hilton ought to be released if inmates sentenced for similar crimes were serving less time. He continued to criticize Baca's decision to cite medical problems for the release, but added that only dangerous offenders should serve their full sentences given the jail's need to limit overcrowding.

"Clearly, her violation is not as serious, so she should be released," said Ali, director of Project Islamic Hope. "The rules of fairness should be applied equally."

Hilton was sentenced to 45 days for violating probation on alcohol-related, reckless-driving charges from an incident in September. Police stopped her while she was driving during the period that her license was suspended.

If Hilton does serve the 23 days, she will have done about the same amount of time as 4,000 inmates who since 2002 had been charged with assaults, as well as more than 1,800 charged with burglary, more than 2,600 charged with domestic violence and nearly 11,000 charged with drug violations.

Over the last five years, more than 200,000 inmates have been released early. Baca started the releases during a budget crunch that he said left him no choice but to shut large portions of the nation's largest county correctional system. Though economic times have since improved, a federal court has ordered his department to reduce chronic overcrowding in the jails, hampering efforts to keep inmates longer.

The Times' analysis of jail releases found that more than 60% of those with cases similar to Hilton's walked free after serving less than half their time. Under the department's current guidelines, Hilton probably would have served even less time. Most nonviolent female offenders sentenced to less than 90 days are released immediately.

"The only special treatment she got — she got more time in jail," Baca said in an interview earlier this week.

(The analysis studied only jail release data and did not take into account other factors that influence individual cases, such as the judge's sentencing record and courtroom behavior of the defendant).

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Michael T. Sauer made it clear when he sentenced Hilton that she was not to be released early. His comments were included in commitment papers the court sent to the jail.