Lindsay Lohan’s Allergy to the Truth Is Coming Back to Bite Her in Court
Lindsay Lohan has a history of not quite understanding, interpreting nor telling the truth, and that’s coming back to haunt her in a big way.
TMZ reports that the prosecutors in her lying-to-cops case are using her history of fibbing against her in court.
Because La Lohan’s got a litany of cases and lawsuits on her hands, just to refresh you: This particular case is about when she allegedly crashed a Porsche into a truck. Lohan reportedly told police she wasn’t driving when she was, in fact, in the driver’s seat.
Now the D.A. is trying to show the court that Lohan makes a habit of spinning her stories when she gets caught behaving badly behind the wheel, and they’re pointing to two particular incidents to prove their case.
One incident went down in March 2012: Lohan was accused of hitting a pedestrian outside of Sayers nightclub. Lohan claimed she was a passenger … but she was photographed in the driver’s seat by paps. (In fairness to LiLo, the flashes may well be why she didn’t see the guy she supposedly hit, but that doesn’t excuse her for lying.)
Another occurred way back in 2007, when Lohan was caught driving under the influence after hitting a curb at 5:30 a.m. Lohan claimed to be a passenger in the mishap, when she was — you guessed it — driving.
Prosecutors will present the incidents in an effort to show that Lohan has a pattern of bad behavior and dishonesty.
Meanwhile, Lohan’s incompetent attorney, Mark Heller, has been trying everything he can to delay the case from going to trial — and it ain’t gonna fly.
“The prosecutor will absolutely object to any motion that is filed attempting to prevent the trial from beginning,” a source told Radar Online.
“Heller has had more than enough time to prepare the case for trial, and if he tries to pull a stunt at the eleventh hour in hopes of causing a delay, he is going to be in for a very rude awakening,” the source added. “The California courts are overloaded right now, and any delay would only cost taxpayers money.”
“This is only a misdemeanor case, it’s not complicated and doesn’t need to be dragged out,” the insider explained. “[James] Dabney is a no-nonsense judge, and it would have to be very unusual circumstances for him to be willing to grant a continuance.”