Fan Fare

Entertainment behind the scenes

Judging Britney, without bias

October 16, 2008

 The trial of Britney Spears on a relatively minor charge of driving without a California license finally got under way on Thursday.brit-driving.jpg

 But finding an unbiased jury in a case in which virtually everyone in Los Angeles knows, or knows of, the  26 year-old pop star took almost as long as the trial itself is expected to last.

 The process began on Wednesday and Spears’  lawyer J. Michael Flanagan said some jurors probably had confused ideas about the case against Spears.
    
“Half the people think she’s been charged with driving under the influence or drunk driving, drugs, and all this kind of stuff,” Flanagan told reporters. “People think they know about this case but they don’t, really.”
    
One teacher in the pool of potential panelists said in court that she disliked “rich, spoiled girls,” and would have a hard time being unbiased toward Spears.
    
 Asked if any of them knew Spears personally, another woman said she knew the singer’s  manager, and was quickly  dismissed from the jury.
    
Flanagan said the trial itself was expected to take only a few hours.  Spears herself has stayed away from the trial, exercising her right not to appear, because the case against her is a misdemeanor instead of a more serious felony case.
    
(Writing by Alex Dobuzinskis)

Comments

If you want to judge Britney for this, then don’t expect any mercy the next time you get a parking ticket, or something similar minor. She had a valid license in Louisiana. She never got a CA license. Ok, so she should have had one. She rectifies the situation in a matter of days. She is prepared to pay a fine (which is all the situation warrants). But what would be enough for you and me is not enough for the LA county district attorney. The prosecuter grandstands out of pettiness, eager to take advantage of all Britney’s bad luck. What is the matter with people? It’s amazing how nobody makes the effort to even try to see things objectively.

Posted by Jennifer | Report as abusive
 

Bad luck is NOT what got Britney into this mess. It was her self-centered, egotistical, spoiled brat attitude. She should not receive special treatment (or worse treatment) than anyone else, but does she deserve anyone’s empathy or pity either.

Posted by Carol | Report as abusive
 

Just because she’s rich and a celebrity, does that mean the law should be more lenient on her and just let her off?

NO. I don’t think so. It’s not a case of people wanting to capitalize on Britney’s “bad luck.” You can bet that if you and I were driving around without a license, we would be found guilty, get a stiff fine, and probably have to do a stint in the pokey. So, what makes her so special that she deserves to get excused?

She was clearly driving around without a license. Any fool has to know you need a license to drive a car. I think 10 year olds know this. Even more, she could have easily paid for a driver to drive her around.

No lame excuses! The law should not just let people off because they are rich and famous.

Posted by Nicole | Report as abusive
 

This is a really minor offense. I’m no longer a taxpayer in California (moved out of state two years ago . . . and didn’t think to get my new license for six months), but I’d be ticked that my tax dollars were being used for this grandstanding nonsense. I’m sure this could have been settled without a jury trial, for goodness sakes!

Posted by Nikki | Report as abusive
 

Forgot to include – She was licensed at the time to drive in Louisianna, and it would’ve been perfectly legal for her to drive in California if she had not established residency. So it’s not that she was not licensed to drive; she was just not licensed to drive BY the state of California. She did have a valid license in another state.

Posted by Nikki | Report as abusive
 

We have hundreds of drivers with valid New York and Pennsylvania licenses who reside in NJ, and we in NJ have similar laws, but nobody gets probation or threats of incarceration. Of course we don’t have a Britney Spears to use in order to further our career. The prosecutor in this case should be disbarred.

Posted by joe | Report as abusive
 

OK YES… SHE NEEDS A LICENSE BUT COME ON DONT YOU THINK A TRIAL IS A LITTLE EXTREME. SHE SHOULDNT HAVE ROYAL TREATMENT BC SHES FAMOUS BUT SHE SHOULD GET A FINE MAYBE PROBATION AND A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME TO GET HER CALIFORNIA LICENSE.

 

Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
  •