Burton Katz
Who wants Paris in the slammer?
“Forty-five days,” Judge Michael Sauer said. With that, Paris Hilton tearfully walked out of the courtroom with her celebrity attorney, Howard Weitzman. The attorney told the media that “the sentence was both cruel and unwarranted,” characterizing the sentencing as “ludicrous.”
Now, Howard is an old friend, and he is very persuasive. After all, he convinced a jury that the FBI entrapped automaker John DeLorean in an alleged conspiracy to traffic in $24 million worth of cocaine, despite videotapes that purported to show his client accepting money from the FBI. He’s good. But I’m not sure that I can go along with his characterization of Judge Sauer’s sentence.
Clearly the sentence is harsh. And the sentence is at the top of the range of civility. What prompted such a heavy sentence is open to debate. The usual opposing views that are as knee-jerk predictable as the pro-gun and anti-gun lobbies following a West Virginia Tech or Columbine shooting, is as follows: “She got what she deserved.” “She’s a rich, spoiled brat, flaunting her contempt for the laws.” Or, “They only sentenced her this harshly because they wanted to make an example of a rich celebrity.”
These reasons are too simplistic, yet there is a germ of truth in each of the protestations. From her public persona, Paris Hilton appears to be a rich, self-indulgent brat who is used to getting her own way, defying normal social conventions. But it is unlikely, were she not a well-known celebrity, that she would have received a full 45 days in jail for her probation violation. Hence the problem of equal justice.
Hilton pled nolo contendere to a charge of reckless driving, reduced from driving under the influence of alcohol in January 2006. “Nolo” is the same as guilty for purposes of criminal law. She was placed on probation under the condition, among others, that she not drive her car for 120 days. According to Hilton, she said that her publicist, Elliot Mintz, who had also represented Bob Dylan, Yoko Ono and John Lennon, told her that she could “drive to work” after 30 days. Alas, Mintz is not a lawyer, but since she said she was “too busy” to consult with her attorney on the court imposed conditions of probation, she relied on Mintz’s alleged interpretation. Poor Mintz. He was wrong. A stupid mistake. He was, of course, fired for such bad advice. Can’t afford to keep errant aides around who fall on their sword.
Mintz was quoted as saying upon his dismissal, “Due to this misunderstanding, I am no longer representing Paris. For the record, I have nothing but love and respect for Paris and her family.” Ever the consummate publicist, even in departure and death!
But back to our alleged probation violation. Hilton was stopped apparently twice, and told by different cops that she was driving with a suspended license. She was even asked to sign an acknowledgement that she knew her license was suspended.
In spite of the foregoing, she drove in defiance of the court-ordered suspension and conditions of probation. One could say, I suppose, “So what, everybody does it.” It may be true that those who absolutely depend on their cars for work-related transportation do on occasion; Hilton had other options, such as chauffeurs and drivers. She could easily afford it, with no ill effects. But she chose not to.
Now if you’re the judge, what do you do? If you believe, as Dwight D. Eisenhower said, “There is no person in this room whose basic rights are not involved in any successful defiance to the carrying out of court orders,” then Hilton’s defiance must be punished. How much punishment is appropriate? A $2,500 fine, while devastating to a lower middle class or poor individual, would mean nothing to Hilton. It would have no impact. Likewise, a weekend soirée in a “private” jail for several weekends would have no measurable impact on Hilton. Jail time would. Straight jail time.
But do we need 45 days to make the point that it is illegal, immoral, and deadly to drive an automobile while under the influence of drugs or alcohol? Just ask MADD. It’s not OK to drive while under the influence. Innocent people are maimed and killed every day because of this fact. Every day, every minute, every hour. Still, the judge originally gave her probation and set reasonable conditions. She defied them, blamed her publicist and accepted no responsibility for her actions. What would you say, if Hilton got a slap on the wrist, went out partying and killed your daughter in a drunken accident? You’d scream at the judge for dereliction of duty.
Weitzman is appealing the sentence as cruel and excessive. While he won’t win on the law, perhaps Sauer would consider modifying the sentence to 45 days in jail, suspended, on condition that she serve the first 5 to 10 days consecutively in the county jail. The balance to remain suspended, so long as she obeys the law and all orders of the court. Harsh, but not too harsh. A point driven home.
Burton Katz is a retired Los Angeles Superior Court judge.