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.

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.

So Chris Brown has decided to do a media tour and gave an interview to Larry King. He is now a bit frustrated about the news coverage of his answers (read: I don’t remember hitting Rihanna), which has yet to air. However, he apparently issued an apology via the song Cry No More.

Well welcome to the real world Mr. Brown. The fact is that one’s legal interests don’t always jive with ones business or public relation interests. Rarely, will someone be able to rehabilitate their public image by giving an interview after a plea deal and then squirming through the details. (Hugh Grant-a notable exception some years back).

Now, maybe it’s true that Brown answered Larry King’s question the first three times he asked them. But who ever said the media is going to focus on the 3 out of 4 times you got it right? The bottom line Chris Brown: if you think your case was difficult, then wait till you have to swim through the media shark tank. It’s too early! Take a deep breath, relax, and stop the interviews-with your attorney by your side or without. Besides, your talent is the best image rehabilitation you have. So get into the recording studio-not the Television studio.

I have posted several times on domestic violence (“DV”) and the Chris Brown/Rihanna saga. Now that Mr. Brown has been sentenced, a few thoughts are warranted.

I commented before that this matter may be resolved rather quickly or can take on a circus like atmosphere. Clearly, Mr. Brown and his legal team believed that contesting the charges was an up-hill battle or otherwise problematic. Brown was sentenced to 5 years formal probation, 180 days Cal. Trans (i.e. labor intensive community service), a one year domestic violence program, a stay away order from Rihanna (despite Rihanna’s request that such a stay away order not be in effect), as well as other conditions. While avoiding jail may sound like a great deal, such plea deal’s are common and defendants often avoid jail time when they have limited or no criminal history. The severity of the victims injuries is a key factor, to be sure. However, even though Rihanna’s injuries appear quite significant, they also are consistent with many similar (yet much less profile) DV cases.

The point is not to minimize the severity of this incident, or to portray Mr. Brown as the victim. But contrary to popular belief, celebrities often receive harsher treatment and sentences than the “average joe.” Although certain things (such as the DV program) are mandatory under California Law, it is quite conceivable that the “average joe” would have received less community service time, perhaps less probation and likely no “stay away” order where the victim herself is against it.

Mr. Brown’s sentence will not be easy. The media glare will be bright and many will look for any conduct justifying a violation of his probation. There are allegations already that Brown violated the terms of his probation by patronizing a night club in Los Angeles where alcohol is served. If Brown is charged with violating his probation, it may be revoked altogether. If that occurs, he can expect no leniency from the judge and will likely serve his sentence in prison. One must only recall the sentence and surrounding circumstances wherein Paris Hilton served in excess of 40 days in jail for a minor misdemeanor probation violation. The average person would likely have served only a few days, if any at all.

So justice in our system can be relative. But one must also remember that those with certain privilege and notoriety don’t always get a just sentence or fair treatment…despite the fact that they are often no less deserving of it.<-->

Recently, I wrote about domestic violence in California – the myths, the consequences and the realities.

A new incident allegedly has Chris Brown beating superstar girlfriend Rihanna while they were on the way to the Grammys last weekend.  Interestingly, the case touches on some of the aspects I discussed last month. There is the celebrity factor–allegedly severe injuries–and although it is reported that Rihanna is cooperating with police, it remains to be seen whether she and Brown reconcile, likely leading her to recant altogether.

The case can progress in a few ways. Either a quick plea bargain is reached as a result of many factors, including overwhelming evidence. Or, there can be a circus like atmosphere and/or a lack of evidence that leads to a vigorous defense and the prosecution overplaying its hand.

It was reported that there was a witness to the incident.  Moreover, Rihanna allegedly suffered severe injuries for which a felony charge may be warranted. On the other hand, the DA’s office is requesting further investigation by the police before filing charges against Brown (something that is not uncommon in high profile cases, but may mean the evidence against him is weak).

As it stands now, Mr. Brown may have an uphill battle ahead of him. There is not much sympathy for domestic violence in Los Angeles, regardless of the troubled childhood Brown allegedly had. Coupled with his celebrity status, rightly or not, he will likely be made an example of. But high profile cases such as these often do not yield typical results. One would hope the legal system is not judged by these type of cases alone–often it seems that it is.