A California appellate court rejected Polanski’s bid to dismiss his case earlier this week, but suggested ways the parties can resolve the matter. The court also noted the serious misconduct by the prosecutor and the judge dating back to the 1970′s case.

It is possible, of course, that some deal between Polanski’s lawyers and the Los Angeles D.A.’s office is reached short of Polanski’s extradition to the U.S. (the appellate court in fact suggested a possible way).  However, the D.A.’s office will wait to hear from the Swiss about extradition and will likely not offer any deal unless Polanski returns.  If the Swiss deny extradition, however, then a deal with a sentence in absentia is much more likely.

Peter Berlin discusses Tiger Woods legal issues and extortion scenarios with Eonline!

Now Tiger Woods may have his share of family and PR headaches to deal with in the coming weeks, but one thing that he wont have is much of  a legal headache.

As had been reported, Tiger will not face criminal charges stemming from the accident and disturbance at his home. The reason? He kept his mouth shut, plain and simple. Woods refused to speak to police about the incident (as is his right to do) and in the process eliminated the possibility of making any incriminating statements.  No one knows what exactly happened, but the story given doesn’t quite add up. However, this is not the point. If the police want to take a statement or conduct an interview in such a situation there is usually one reason: “they don’t have enough evidence to charge a crime and/or they want to extract a confession.”  Given this, nothing that Mr. Woods  said would have helped him, only hurt.

The inclination to make any statement to police or officials is often misguided. I see this not only with clients that come to me but also in high profile cases (Martha Stewart, Scooter Libby to name a few) where individuals are already represented by counsel.

In this instance, Mr. Woods likely received some good and prompt advice… and he made the right choice.

Roman Polanski may be free on bail soon. It will be interesting to see whether he will continue to fight extradition or work out a deal with the LA District Attorneys office to resolve the matter. Apparently, Mr. Polanski’s European lawyers have differences with their US counterparts on various issues and strategy and it remains to be seen what exactly will happen.

Next time someone inquires how I can defend an “[alleged] drunk driver?” …in part, consider this recent news story of a cop manufacturing over 200 DUI arrests and making extra money as a result.  This conduct is cropping up in many places.

Fake DUI Arrests.

Mel Gibson’s 2006 conviction for DUI was expunged today by a Los Angeles Judge.

Expungements are available for many offenses when one completes the terms of probation and otherwise stays out of trouble.  However, an expungement is not entirely what most people think either.  It does not permanently erase your record of conviction and the police and the DA’s office certainly have a record of it.  If one is charged with a subsequent offense, the prior arrest and conviction will show up even though it was expunged.

So what is an expungement good for? Well,  in many situations you can legitimately treat that conviction as though it never occurred.  For example,  an expungement aids in applying for employment or to college.  If a conviction has been expunged, one generally (but not always) does not have to list such a conviction on a job or school application.

So even though a new job or school attendance is hardly Mr. Gibson’s worry, expungements do serve a useful and necessary function for most people.

After his arrest this week, Roman Polanski is expected to fight extradition from Switzerland to the United States where he pled guilty to unlawful sex with a 13 year old girl in 1977.

Many seem to be puzzled why, after so many years, has the LA County District Attorney’s office bothered with this now?  The answer seems to be pretty clear: Polanski, through his lawyers, red-flagged himself when he petitioned an appeals court to dismiss his case earlier this year. By doing so, even though instances of judicial misconduct were noted, he put himself back on the radar map.

But Polanksi’s dilemma is not so much of whether his conviction can be set-aside or his plea withdrawn. The judicial misconduct at the time appears present and he deserves to have this opportunity.  Rather,  it lies in the fact that he willfully fled and became a fugitive.  Courts’ do not like when their orders are disobeyed and when one fails to appear for proceedings.  So if he is extradited, Mr. Polanski’s problem is not so much whether he can get a new trial, or withdraw his previous plea…but in explaining why he shouldn’t be punished (as most defendants are) for going awol for the better part of 30 years.

I have posted ad nauseum about the often incorrect perception that celebrities “get off” easy when accused of criminal wrongdoing. It is rather funny to be an advocate for a group that is quite capable of taking care of their own interests. However, more and more we are seeing a blatant double standard applied to celebrity wrong doing then that of the average citizen.  The bottom line is that the law should be blind to issues of race, gender, religion, status, and yes…celebrity.

More often than not, the public’s first introduction to a particular crime occurs when a celebrity is accused of improper conduct. Hearing of the violation and the maximum penalty for such an offense, the public cries foul if a celebrity is given probation or community service. The perception is: “wow…only a celebrity with money and fame could get off like that!”  For those of us that represent people daily for such violations, however, these supposedly lenient sentences are common and even likely for an average person.

Take Plaxico Burress.  He carries a handgun into a nightclub (inside his waistband and without a holster) and accidentally proceeds to shoot himself in the foot (no pun intended).  His gun is unregistered and his Florida concealed weapons permit has expired (not that it would make much difference).  Sentence: 2 years in prison. If one was an average person with no criminal record, no history of violence and no specific intent to do harm,  do you think they would face a two year prison term? Doubtful…

First, the fact the New York City passed an arcane gun law which provides a mandatory minimum 3 1/2 year prison term for an unregistered firearm is in and of itself absurd. Mind you, these are not otherwise illegal weapons. So the statute makes otherwise law abiding citizens automatic criminals if they forget, are unaware or  fail to register a firearm in New York.

Second, yes Burress did illegally carry a concealed weapon. But when was the last time you heard the Mayor of NYC sound off that the book must be thrown at an average person for such a criminal violation? Well, since a celebrity is involved Michael Bloomberg did just that. Besides, what business is it of the Mayor to advise or comment on criminal prosecutions? He isn’t the District Attorney, nor is he a judge. What he managed to do, however,  is send a message to the DA and the Judge as to what is expected. Hardly proper or fair.

The stupidity of Burress’ conduct is clear. His negligence is even clearer.  However, there is no intent (either alleged or offered) that his conduct was anything but accidental. In California for instance, carrying a concealed firearm is generally a misdemeanor. Someone who has no criminal record would likely receive probation and community service. Given similar facts as with the Burress case, perhaps a jail term….maybe.  But two years of Prison? No way.  Moreover,  what purpose does it serve to have Burress in prison for two years? Wouldn’t say a 6 month Jail sentence and hundreds of hours of community service better fit the crime?

Although it is crucial that our legal system protects the “little guy,” it is just as important to note when there is a severe swing of unfair, politically motivated and biased handling of cases related to any group. Burress is another example of a justice system,  that far to often… is anything but blind.

Lawyers are not always perfect. Neither are clients.  This gem is a few years old…but worth watching nonetheless as you approach the 1:10 mark.

DOVER, Kan. Sept 13— Two newlyweds held hostage in their eastern Kansas home on Saturday escaped unharmed when the man holding them captive fell asleep — after they gave him pillows and a blanket, authorities and family members said. (Read full story here).