Quote from version77:
I didn't realize her first offense was a DUI. I thought it was a reckless driving conviction.
The time line is worthy of the sentence, I find it shocking that these TV pundits/attorneys that know all the case facts are suggesting that it's harsh:
1. She was arrested Sept. 7 for driving under the influence after being observed "driving erratically."
2. In January, she pleaded no contest to a reduced charge of alcohol-related reckless driving. Her license was suspended and she was placed on three years' probation and fined $1,500. And she had to attend an alcohol education program.
3. Later that same month, she was pulled over and informed she was driving on a suspended license.
The officer had her sign a document in which she acknowledges that it was against the law to drive while her license was suspended. Cops just don't hand these out and say "Sign here," they patiently explain what the document says.
One would imagine that the cop didn't let her drive home, but had the car impounded which I find to be very indicative that you're not allowed to drive.
4. On Feb. 27, She's stopped for driving 70 mph in a 35 mph zone "in darkness without her headlights on."
The document she had signed acknowledging she was not to drive while her license was suspended was in the glove compartment.
5. At her hearing, she blamed it on her publicist, a blatant and outright lie.
Judges loathe liars, for obvious reasons; they are charged with finding the factual truth.
6. Yet, incredibly, this spoiled brat gets another break of 1/2 the maximum possible sentence of 90 days.