Lindsay Lohan jailed for 30 days: Judge denies actress bail, remands her

alexmst

New member
Dec 27, 2004
6,939
1
0
By Dionne Clarke

Lindsay Lohan has been jailed for 30 days today after Judge Elden Fox remanded her in custody pending her formal probation hearing on October 22.

The actress was handcuffed and taken away and will be behind bars for the next month.
She'll serve her time in Lynwood Correctional Facility which is where she served 13 days earlier this summer.


The actress was brought before the judge after failing two drug tests earlier this month. One was for cocaine and the other was for Adderall - a drug taken for ADHD.

Lindsay's lawyer Shawn Chapman Holly asked the judge if he would consider bail to which he replied 'no'.

Holly then asked if the formal probation hearing could be pushed back to October 29. The judge told her that he didn't think she'd want the hearing on October 22. A later date would mean Lindsay would have to spend longer in jail.

Judge Fox did not hear any arguments from the lawyers before making his ruling. His decision stunned Lindsay's team because the underlying offence is a misdemeanor and some experts were reporting that the judge would have to offer Lindsay bail.

Lindsay's reaction was apparently that of shock when she was remanded in custody. She is said to have looked at her lawyer before being taken out of the courtroom. (Wearing FU nailpolish to court can come back to bite one one in the ass...)

Judge Fox scheduled a formal probation hearing for 30 days from now when Lindsay will have to answer to her failed drug tests.

He had previously warned Lohan he would put her back behind bars if she tested positive or skipped one of her twice-weekly tests.
This is Lindsay's 4th bench warrant stemming from her DUI case in December 2007.

Yesterday Lindsay had been out shopping at The Grove in Los Angeles - seemingly not worried about her fate.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbi...-Judge-denies-actress-bail.html#ixzz10T3PLxeG
 

Cassini

Active member
Jan 17, 2004
1,162
0
36
Unless you are backed up by a sovereign state, it is always best to do what the judge tells you to do.

I think Conrad went to jail, mostly because the judge told him to stay away from his office, and he didn't stay away. The contempt of court charge was the key one that the prosecutors could really nail him with.
 

Cobster

New member
Apr 29, 2002
10,422
0
0
She loves all the attention and I sometimes wonder if she's not doing any of this on purpose, I wouldn't be surprised to be honest.
 

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
75,010
82,409
113
Bet that's one ass-fired defence lawyer!

Lindsay will be pissed tonight.

(Actually, she looked VERY hot in the pre court photos and the court artist's sketch of L being handcuffed by a court security officer gave me a woody.)
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,768
3
0
why does she have to have drug tests?
They are a condition of release (quite typical when the underlying charge involves alcohol or drugs). For defendants like Miss Lohan they just keep digging the hole deeper and deeper, failure to appear, violation of court orders, conditions of release, etc. . . The time arrives when the Judge reaches their limit on the defendant's lack of respect for the court and lowers the boom. Frankly I'm supprised it took this long - which probably has to do with "being an actress."
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,768
3
0
I don't freeking believe the legal system in California! Now Judge Schnegg, an assistant supervising judge, has released Lohan from jail stating that in misdemeanor cases California law provides that defendants have a right to bail. Dispite the fact that she has repeatedly violated the same so now she is back out again on $300,000 bail and a alcohol monitoring bracelet.

I agree with all the others who are expressing shock.
 

luckyseven

New member
Nov 11, 2008
28
0
0
Toronto
I severely dislike this broad. She is a spoiled brat who tries to use her supposed status to weasel her way out of basic life obligations. She has brought this all on to herself. Each person is responsible for the life they lead and she has the ability to own up and be a decent person. Instead, she decides to be a failure.
 

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
75,010
82,409
113
I don't freeking believe the legal system in California! Now Judge Schnegg, an assistant supervising judge, has released Lohan from jail stating that in misdemeanor cases California law provides that defendants have a right to bail. Dispite the fact that she has repeatedly violated the same so now she is back out again on $300,000 bail and a alcohol monitoring bracelet.

I agree with all the others who are expressing shock.
Well, surely they don't have an ABSOLUTE right to bail. I mean, how about someone who declares he will intimidate a witness in the main charge against him if released.

But Lindsay was denied a meaningful BAIL HEARING on the breach of probation arrest. The judge simply saying "nope" just ain't a bail hearing. In fact, it was a nice moment that was also probably borderline judicial misconduct.

So, the defence has a good argument IMO.

Plus, she probably blew the new judge under his desk while he was making his ruling.
 

red

you must be fk'n kid'g me
Nov 13, 2001
17,572
8
38
They are a condition of release (quite typical when the underlying charge involves alcohol or drugs). For defendants like Miss Lohan they just keep digging the hole deeper and deeper, failure to appear, violation of court orders, conditions of release, etc. . . The time arrives when the Judge reaches their limit on the defendant's lack of respect for the court and lowers the boom. Frankly I'm supprised it took this long - which probably has to do with "being an actress."
i understand they are conditions of release. i guess my real question is- why should it be a condition of release?
 
Toronto Escorts