- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Its been a few years since I was a criminal defense attorney in (Northern) California, but here's my take. Her setence was, for the most part normal.
1st she gets arrested for DUI. She blows an 0.08, a very "lowest level for DUI. The breath testing equipment has a margin of error and it was unlikely that the state could actually convict her. So it was probably pretty easy for her 1st lawyer (who I heard does not normally do DUI work) to get the prosecutor to reduce it to a charge of reckless driving in exchange for a plea of "guilty" or "no contest". Paris was spared the spectacle of a trial and the State was spared a trial it would probably lose. The judge, who probably does thousands of the exact same types of cases a year gave her the exact same "standard" sentence that he would give to anyone who pled a DUI to a the reduced charge of "wet reckless". Probation, fines, a suspension of her license, and an order that she go to alcohol classes.
She, like many other defendants each week, blew off her classes and drove on the suspended license in blatant disregard for the court's authority. 1st time, in my experience, usually nets a defedant an increased fine, a stern scolding, and a real threat of jail, or maybe even a weekend or two in jail, especially iif the classes aren't done. Paris did not get jail - she probably got the scolding.
Shortly thereafter, however, Paris (again like many other defendants day in and day out) blew it off and drove on her suspended license. 45 days in jail for a second such a probation violation is about normal. There was a note on her file about doubling it to 90 days if she didn't show up in court, so the judge obviously already had concerns about her capacity to just blow off the system. Most judges are concerned about treating people equally and most, therefore, have a fairly programmed and predictable response to common crimes like this. Paris would typically be discussed something like this: "young, no priors, duece dropped to a wet reckless - second VOP for driving suspended - blew off the classes". Hearing that, whether the name be Paris or Jamal - the court probably thought about milisecond and said "OK the usual 45" days.
Paris's mistake was taking the plea. Most self respecting defense lawyers won't plead out an 0.08. They will go to trial and win. She and her lawyer are, i n part, paying for taking the easy way out back at the beginning of this.
The thing about the sheriff letting her out of jail is where it gets wierd. That does not normally happen. It seems really unlikely that someone who made it as far up in the ranks as sheriff would be amatuer enough to just take a bribe. Maybe the jail staff just wouldn't stop complaining about the cries and sick moose noises coming out of her cell and asked to get her out.
After her 1st sentencing hearing, Paris got a new lawyer - one who regularly works in the criminal courts. My guess is that he's respected and trusted by many in the system and he was able to carry some sway with the sheriff and arrange her early "medical" release. My guess is that her release was more due to personal relationships and trust between the sheriff and her new lawyer that it was due to a bribe or "overt" corruption. Whatever happened with the sheriff, sending her right back in to do the 45 is what I'd expect from most California judges upon hearing about it.
Vegreef
