Lindsay Lohan finds herself back on trial, this time for lying
This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.
Barring a last-minute plea deal, Lindsay Lohan on Monday will go on trial on charges that she lied to police in the wake of a car crash.
Santa Monica prosecutors allege the 26-year-old actress told officers she was not driving a Porsche that rear-ended a truck June 18 as she headed to the set of “Liz & Dick.”
Lohan faces one misdemeanor count each of reckless driving, providing false information to an officer and willfully resisting, obstructing or delaying an officer.
There had been talk of a possible plea deal, but none was forthcoming over the last few weeks.
Prosecutors had proposed the actress serve 90 days in a locked rehabilitation facility to resolve the three misdemeanor counts, according to several people with knowledge of the situation. But so far, she has given no indication that she is willing to enter that type of program, they say.
At a recent hearing, her attorney, Mark Heller, said Lohan did not need to be placed in a rehabilitation facility. But whether Heller will remain her sole attorney next week is unclear.
Heller, from New York, has asked a respected Orange County criminal law firm to assist him in Lohan’s defense, according to partners at the firm. Paul Wallin, a partner at Wallin & Klarich, said the attorney who was requested was David Wohl, a 24-year veteran of California courts and a regular legal analyst for Fox News.
‘We are awaiting Ms. Lohan’s approval,’ Wallin said. ‘Mr. Heller made the request. The court and our firm want to ensure the integrity of this case.’
Wallin said the firm isn’t doing the case for publicity.
‘We don’t need publicity,’ he said recently.'We have plenty of cases and high-profile clients.’
He said Lohan’s father, Michael Lohan, has also been in contact with the firm, but the firm wants the actress’ approval before becoming involved in the case. Wallin said any other attorney entering the case on Lohan’s behalf would ask for a trial delay to get up to speed on the evidence and history.
L.A. County Superior Court Judge James Dabney told the actress the last time she was in his courtroom that if she proceeded with Heller as her sole legal counsel, she would be required to sign a waiver stating he was incompetent in California law.
Until last month, Lohan was represented by Shawn Holley, among the region’s top lawyers.
Dmitry Gorin, a veteran defense attorney and former prosecutor, said that such a waiver was almost unprecedented and the entire issue could be grounds for appeal on any action the court takes.
Lohan has been on probation for various drunk-driving and shoplifting charges since 2007 and accumulated what the judge described as a voluminous court file. She remains on probation for shoplifting.
During a court hearing last week without Lohan present, Dabney disregarded Heller’s request to delay the case until April and set the Monday trial date, while repeatedly scolding the veteran New York lawyer for gaffes.
Dabney questioned the attorney’s ability to adequately defend the actress in California, given that he did not seem familiar with the state’s criminal law system.
‘I’m somewhat concerned whether you have sufficient guidance from local counsel,’ the judge said after Heller filed a ‘bill of particulars’ -- a motion not used in California criminal proceedings. A local attorney who vouched for Heller has not practiced law for several years.
The judge bluntly lectured Heller for 10 minutes on how that, as well as some other motions, were incorrect procedures for a California criminal court.
Heller took the legal helm recently after representing Lohan in New York. Dabney rejected a different motion by Heller, this time to dismiss the charges, and informed the attorney he had not complied with California legal requirements.
Under state law, attorneys must file motions to dismiss during the arraignment, Dabney said. That period has already passed.
Heller said he could not file a motion to dismiss at the arraignment because he was not Lohan’s attorney at the time. Heller said he was seeking to protect Lohan’s constitutional rights and was unable to determine from the charges whether his client made statements at the scene, at the hospital or to emergency responders.
But the judge said California lawyers know that such a motion regarding Miranda rights and statements is only appropriate once the case reaches trial.
-- Richard Winton