Lindsay Lohan and her new lawyer, Mark Heller, made it to their court hearing in front of Judge Stephanie Sautner on Wednesday, and although Lohan wasn't immediately thrown behind bars, Judge Sautner set up several future court dates to cover the troubled actress' legal issues.
Lohan has been charged with lying to the police, reckless driving and obstructing officers from performing their duties. The charges stem from her Pacific Coast Highway crash last June. She initially said she was not driving her Porsche, but in reality she was behind the wheel.
Sautner scheduled Lohan's case to be brought back into court on March 1, and again on March 18, assuming it goes to trial. While Lohan is not required to attend the pretrial hearing on March 1, Sautner said that the actress must be present on March 18.
Multiple reports said that Lohan had tried to get out of the hearing by saying she was sick, but Lohan, who was also reported as rushing to California after it became clear she could face a warrant for her arrest if she did not show up, said she changed her mind at the last moment to "show respect to the court."
Sautner, who has a lot of experience with Lohan, didn't appear to believe her. She also teased Lohan, somewhat, with comments about her health. Sautner first said, "I'm glad to see you're feeling better, then asked about Lohan's upper respiratory illness, She asked, "Is that like a cold?"
When Heller tried to liken Lohan's illness to the flu, Judge Sautner rebuked him with the comment, "No, it’s not. The flu is the flu."
In another part of the hearing Heller attempted to make small talk with Sautner, but she didn't take kindly to that, either. She said, "Flattery doesn't get you anywhere in this court." Ouch.
However, not only did Lohan get a lucky break with no jail time, she got more good news. Sautner said she will be retiring just before Lohan's next hearing.
There was also some bad news, though. Even if Lohan was found not guilty in the lying to the police case, her probation in the jewelry case could still be violated since the standard of proof is lower.
Comments