The People vs. Britney Spears
While we await closing arguments in Britney Spears’ misdemeanor invalid driver’s license trial, it’s time to review yesterday’s key events:
- A 12-person jury and two alternate jurors were selected, including 10 women and four men. Of these, at least eight expressed some form of sympathy for Britney, although most felt neutral in their overall impression of her.
- Prosecutor Michael Amerian’s brief opening statement called the case “straightforward” because Britney “was driving on Aug. 6, 2007, and did not have a California license.”
- Britney’s attorney Michael Flanagan then argued that Britney was not required to get a California DL because she considers Louisiana as her permanent residence: “She’s building a new house there, where she hopes to return as soon as her custody situation is straightened out.”
- Jamie Spears testified that Britney is in California for the sake of her two sons. “We’re here with her kids,” he said. “We have visitation rights. We have to stay to augment those rights.” He also added that Britney will move back to Louisiana once “we can travel with the kids (out of state) and spend time there.”
Puh-lease, Britney. Everyone knows you live in the Summit, a gated Los Angeles housing community located just north of Mulholland Drive, and that court documents reflect that you are a resident of CA. Popsquire doesn’t care, though. This entire case is a ridiculous waste of judicial resources.
Click here to review Britney’s 2007 and 2008 pop culture/law collisions.
