JohnCenaFan28
10-22-2008, 10:08 PM
The judge in Britney Spears' trial for driving without a valid Californian licence has declared a mistrial after jurors failed to reach a verdict.
The 26-year-old pop star was not present to hear the decision, after eight hours of deliberations.
The charge related to an incident in Los Angeles last August, when the pop star was photographed hitting a parked car and leaving the scene.
Prosecutors will not pursue the matter so Spears will not face a retrial.
After a second day of deliberation, the foreman of the jury said they had failed to reach a unanimous conclusion after three votes.
On Monday the jurors had said that votes were stuck at 10-2, but did not reveal which way they were leaning.
Superior Court Judge James A Steele had questioned whether more could be done to encourage discussion or reach a verdict.
"I think with each return to the assembly room, everyone becomes more entrenched in their position," the foreman replied.
'Straightforward case'
There was no mention during the trial of the accident that led to the charges, as agreed by the defence and prosecution.
The omission led to the jury's other question: "Why was she stopped in the first place?"
During the trial, the prosecution had said it was "a straightforward case" - the singer's address was listed as Beverley Hills so she should have a Californian driving licence.
Ms Spears' lawyer, J Michael Flanagan, told the jury during the defence that there was no dispute she had been driving but said that, at the time, she had a valid Louisiana driving licence.
He argued that Ms Spears did not need a Californian driving licence because she was only a temporary resident of Los Angeles.
Mr Flanagan rejected a plea deal which would have resulted in a $150 (£85) fine saying Ms Spears did not want a criminal record.
She had faced up to six months in jail and a fine if convicted, but this was considered unlikely as she had no previous convictions.
-BBC News
The 26-year-old pop star was not present to hear the decision, after eight hours of deliberations.
The charge related to an incident in Los Angeles last August, when the pop star was photographed hitting a parked car and leaving the scene.
Prosecutors will not pursue the matter so Spears will not face a retrial.
After a second day of deliberation, the foreman of the jury said they had failed to reach a unanimous conclusion after three votes.
On Monday the jurors had said that votes were stuck at 10-2, but did not reveal which way they were leaning.
Superior Court Judge James A Steele had questioned whether more could be done to encourage discussion or reach a verdict.
"I think with each return to the assembly room, everyone becomes more entrenched in their position," the foreman replied.
'Straightforward case'
There was no mention during the trial of the accident that led to the charges, as agreed by the defence and prosecution.
The omission led to the jury's other question: "Why was she stopped in the first place?"
During the trial, the prosecution had said it was "a straightforward case" - the singer's address was listed as Beverley Hills so she should have a Californian driving licence.
Ms Spears' lawyer, J Michael Flanagan, told the jury during the defence that there was no dispute she had been driving but said that, at the time, she had a valid Louisiana driving licence.
He argued that Ms Spears did not need a Californian driving licence because she was only a temporary resident of Los Angeles.
Mr Flanagan rejected a plea deal which would have resulted in a $150 (£85) fine saying Ms Spears did not want a criminal record.
She had faced up to six months in jail and a fine if convicted, but this was considered unlikely as she had no previous convictions.
-BBC News