January 18, 2008
"Lohan to Work in Morgue As Punishment"
From the truth-is-stranger-than-fiction department comes this AP story carrying the same headline as this post. Here are more specifics:
Lindsay Lohan is about to see dead people. The 21-year-old actress will soon be working at a morgue as part of her punishment for misdemeanor drunken driving, her attorney, Blair Berk, told a judge Thursday.
She has also spent two months in rehabilitation and has done some community service, Berk said at a hearing on her progress toward fulfilling the terms of her plea bargain. Her two four-hour days at the morgue are part of a court-ordered program to show drivers the real-life consequences of drinking and driving. She must also spend two days working in a hospital emergency room.
After a long week, I cannot think of a good joke to go with this story. Perhaps readers with more energy can lighten the morbid mood in the comments.
January 18, 2008 at 04:00 PM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "Lohan to Work in Morgue As Punishment":
Professor Berman : Jsut saw this on 4th amendment blog and thought of your blog.
OH: No right of confrontation to bar CI's hearsay at suppression hearing
Right of confrontation does not apply in pretrial proceedings like a suppression hearing. State v. Miller, 2008 Ohio 100, 2008 Ohio App. LEXIS 77 (5th Dist. January 11, 2008):
Appellant contends the out-of-court statements of the confidential informant offered by the police officer at the suppression hearing are "testimonial" under Crawford; however, "[t]he right to confrontation, which includes the right to physically face and cross-examine witnesses, is not a constitutionally compelled rule of pretrial proceedings." State v. Dunn, Washington App.No. 03CA47. 2004 Ohio 2883, P 11, citing Pennsylvania v. Ritchie (1987), 480 U.S. 39, 52-53, 107 S.Ct. 989, 94 L.Ed.2d 40. Although this appears to be a question of first impression in this Court, the Sixth District Court of Appeals has concluded that the rule of Crawford applies to the actual criminal trial, not to a suppression hearing. See State v. Massie, Ottawa App.No. OT-04-007, 2005 Ohio 1678, P 16. Upon our review of Crawford and its progeny, we decline to extend the rule to pretrial suppression hearings under the circumstances of the case sub judice.
david b. chontos
Posted by: David B. Chontos | Jan 18, 2008 4:03:02 PM
When she spends time at the ER, maybe she'll learn the art of resuscitation so she can apply it to other things that show no signs of life . . . like her career.
Posted by: anon | Jan 18, 2008 5:17:52 PM