Legal Experts Believe Lindsay Lohan Stands a Good Chance at Trial

By Justine Goodman Posted Mar 24th 2011 03:00PM

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.

SNTV - A Break for Lindsay Lohan?

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 drug 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.

Tags: lindsay lohan

Comments

(29)

Thursday 24 March

By Sally

High Rank Vote down Vote up Report this

What these legal 'experts' fail to mention is all the other times she has been caught stealing. This is just the latest instance and the cheapest merchandise. If the prosecution is able to get that allowed into evidence as "evidence of a pattern of ongoing criminal behavior", she is screwed.

In the end it doesn't really matter much because by all reports she has taken her latest 'last chance' as seriously as all her other 'last chances' and has been blowing off the terms of her probation left, right ands center.

Since jail overcrowding leads to laughable jailtime for legitimate sentences - why not put her under house arrest with electronic monitoring. Sure she has worn the anklet before, but the terms of house arrest can be made much stricter than what she had before - strict enough to actually be punishment.

Like, being allowed to leave the house only at certain times and for specified duration for certain court pre-approved purposes, like work or AA or church - with the addresses of these locations recorded and the gps logs reviewed regularly. Like no being allowed to go more than x-feet from the front door at any other time without setting off an alarm. And of course, continuing the random drug tests.

Wednesday 30 March

By Yelp Hater

Vote down Vote up Report this

These legal experts are just as bad as the criminal celebrities. What does this lawyer have to base his opinions on? Highlights from a video on ET, Facts from TMZ? This guy is just spouting out the obvious and getting his name credited to another article. These people do not live in the same world we do. With a good (and expensive) enough attorney, you can find a loop hole in any case. To these people, the point is not whether she is guilty (she is btw), its whether or not they can get her acquitted. The crime itself is almost irrelevant.

Friday 25 March

By ejg43

thanks to the reporter for explaining the legal possibilities so clearly.
jane

Saturday 26 March

By Eimi

I had a lot of hope for you when she was young... Now, I'm just waiting for her to die like all the other failures in Hollywood.

We lose wonderful actors like Heath Ledger and yet this trash still walks the street. Talk about unfair.

Sunday 27 March

By joenamherst

Of course she will not serve any time in prison. It may cost her a fortune, but the judges in previous trials involving celebrities have obviously been paid off. Examples......O.J. and Jacko THE Wacko!

By pippa

who gives a flying ****

Friday 22 April

By DKW

I feel sorry for Lindsey. She is trying aweful hard to get attention but it's the wrong kind. If this would be any one else we would be under the jail. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if a jewlery store lends you something like this would there not be a paper trail. DAH!!

By jamie

if she stole it why would she openly wear it for everyone to see,,,,,,,,, also shes a millionaire , she doesnt need to steal it ,,,,,,, the ppl running the store are the crooked ones ,,,,, just looking for publicity to make money

By joe bananas

So, It seems the store let her walk out with the necklace and days later they reported it stolen. If they waited days to report it stolen, she must have left the store possessing the necklace with their knowledge, permission and consent. This is NOT felony theft. This is unauthorized use of the item instead. Same as if you rent a car and don't return it. It's unauthorized use not grand theft. She will get lucky in this case but somewhere along the line, if she doesn't smarten up, she won't be able to weasel her way out in the future..

Page 2 of 2