Britney Spears Hangs ‘em Up
Simple Justice:
From Anne Skove at Court-o-Rama, I learned that Britney Spears was (1) arrested for driving without a California license, (2) went to trial, and (3) ended with a hung jury. It was old news when Anne posted it, and it’s even older now. That’s what I get for not keeping abreast of Britney Spears news.
But the story surrounding the Pop Tart’s trial is fascinating (in the John Stewart sort of way). From the LA Times:
After three days of deliberations, a dozen citizens threw up their hands Tuesday and said they could not agree on whether the oft-troubled entertainer was guilty of driving without a license during a fender bender last year. Ten jurors wanted to acquit. Two voted for conviction.
Now the ten to two for acquittal is itself unusual, until one realizes why she was being prosecuted. The problem wasn’t that she didn’t have a drivers license, but that she didn’t have a California drivers license. She had one from Louisiana, where she claimed permanent residence, but the prosecution contended that she was really a California resident and, therefore, was required to have a license issued by California.
Now I have no particular concern for Britney Spears. I’m not a follower, and much preferred her when she was a fresh-faced teenager in parochial school clothing. My daughter was a fan back then. I thought she aged poorly. But the notion that a prosecutor pursued a case against Spears on this spurious basis is outrageous. Beyond trivial. And then, the case went to trial.
The city attorney’s office routinely prosecutes people for driving without a license — nearly 3,700 this year alone. In the overwhelming majority of cases, the defendant accepts a guilty plea to the misdemeanor or to a traffic infraction. In other cases, the charge is dropped when a defendant obtains a…