Loughlin still has time to negotiate some sort of plea deal, down the road. It’s way to early from a legal defense strategy stand point to throw in the towel. I doubt the prosecution has even presented all of the evidence to the defense teams.
They probably took a close look at the recent Smollett case and got some ideas over there. Do some community time and forfeit the bond, et voilà!, and you walk away from all this.
I mean, only the little people do time, righ?
AIUI, prosecutors already offered plea deals to all those charged in the scandal, and advised suspects to accept those plea deals quickly - the implication being that no other deals would be offered in the future.
Loughlin seems to think her crimes weren’t crimes, and literally wants her day in court so she can explain herself. She’s rolling the dice, and I think she will regret her choice.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse, right? Maybe she’ll go with entrapment.
Yesterday there were news stories that the prosecutors were recommending jail time for Felicity Huffman, who pled guilty and wrote what I thought was a very sincere, contrite apology. If she gets jail time, what should someone who still claims innocence get?
More jail time.
Hopefully her lawyers aren’t that stupid.
Entrapment would require that the circumstances be set up by law enforcement. Definitely a complete non-starter.
And that she were somehow unfairly coerced into participating. Iffy, depending on what evidence/testimony she could produce.
Wait there a bit…Oh boy: Lori Loughlin and Mossimo Giannulli ‘outraged’ they’re being called cheaters. Oh, really, now. Why, who would have thought…
I suppose wanting to go to actual trial is a straightforward, though perhaps foolhardy, strategy based on believing there may be enough jurors who once she presents her position will say to themselves, “why isn’t the DA going after the Real Criminalssup[/sup] and why should those who turned Rat get off easier” and de-facto nullify(*).
The defense probably would be a combination of “We were fiendishly manipulated into going beyond cutting corners into breaking laws” plus “any parent would do anything for their children” plus “it was our own money and nobody was hurt” plus “the prosecution is just virtue-signaling 'cause we are rich, famous and conservative” plus “and on top of that they’re piling on just because we did not take their offer”.
Then win or lose she could still seek to spin-frame it to the public as a position of principle of “no, it’s not justice to just make people fold by threatening even worse charges and penalties if they don’t roll over at once: convict them fair and square with what you have or don’t”, which could make them sympathetic to a lot of people
(* That is something I often see in association with white collar “crimes of privilege” – often the loudest complaint from the accused is about being “treated like a common criminal”)
Anyone want to place bets as to whether they might be going for some variant of the “affluenza defense”?
So what then? What they did wasn’t actually illegal? Sympathetic/stupid jury?
We can’t really believe the tabloid reports. They are clearly spin attempts one way or the other.
Yes, we’ve seen a lot of that lately, haven’t we. And I can think of one person in particular who would find this line of defense compelling. Someone who’s railed a lot against how heavy-handed federal law enforcement is with white collar criminals. Someone who, at best, came close to committing crimes to protect his son and defended his own actions. Someone who could make ALL their problems go away with the stroke of a pen.
I think they’re going for a presidential pardon. That’s the only rational explanation for their actions.
My favorite quote:
Maybe if their stupid kid shoots both of them for ruining her life, she can use that as a defense also.
Maybe they will play dumb and just say they thought Singer was running a legitimate business, and they, as clients, just followed what they were told to do, and assumed $500K was just the cost of Singer’s services. C’mon sheeple - THEY are the victims here!
The thing is, apparently Singer did have legitimate clients as well. We have no real idea of the evidence and timeline so it’s certainly possible that Loughlin was using him legitimately and police asked Singer to offer/sell her on the illegal stuff.
Looks like the students are chips off the old blockheads: “Just how stupid do you have to be to try that?”
Are you referring to something specific? From what I’ve read, it’s very much a mixed bag as to how much the students knew. Some completely in the dark and some neck deep in the fraud.
Old saying in legal circles:
If the facts are against you, Argue The Law.
If the law is against you, Argue The Facts.
If the facts AND the law are against you, Attack the Cops.
:mad: Three. I’ve served on THREE juries!
Then again maybe you have a point :p.*
- Honestly I think the batting average on the juries I’ve been on has been pretty decent. A couple of arguably “below average” easily swayed or dogmatic types, but mostly some fairly thoughtful folks. I always enjoyed the process - nice vacation from work.
Actually no. We know the timeline and this is incorrect.
The FBI became aware of the Illegal activities around April 2018. Laughlin’s older daughter is a sophomore so she would have already been admitted to USC.
The latest gossip supposedly from people supposedly close to Loughlin is that they knew that they were breaking rules but not that they were breaking laws. They were misled by their advisers.
How is that relevant? Ignorance of the law is no excuse, right?