Why Letterman's extortionist needs an agent, not a lawyer

Today we're starting a new weekly feature called Crime Time, which will delve deeper into the intersection of showbiz and the criminal courts than we typically go on this blog. For that we've reached out to a new contributor, Russell Wetanson, an entertainment reporter and lawyer who can been seen on TV Guide Network, HLN and E!. A big welcome to Russell.    

By Russell Wetanson

I hate to admit it, but a criminal may need an agent more than he needs a lawyer these days. Before you berate me for saying so, consider the supporting evidence that surfaced this week.

Man assaulted on MTV's 'Jersey Shore' seeks to block DVD release

By Eriq Gardner

A man beaten during an episode of MTV's reality show "Jersey Shore" is suing to prevent the release of the first season of the show on DVD as well as future airings of two episodes.

Stephen Izzo Jr. has filed a lawsuit in New Jersey Superior Court against cast member Ronnie Ortiz, MTV, Viacom International, and various producers and staff on the show, claiming they shouldn't be able to profit from criminal conduct. Ortiz was arrested by police and charged with aggravated assault on Izzo last September.

The most Hardcore obscenity decision ever

By Eriq Gardner

A little-noticed Court of Appeal decision last week may not be as shocking as some of the acts of degradation it discusses, but it deserves some edge-of-your-seat attention.

The 11th Circuit has ruled that hard-core materials published on the Internet can be judged "obscene" by a jury in small-town America even if the images were posted by someone thousands of miles away. 

The case involves film producer Paul Little, aka Max Hardcore, whose movies are so cringe-inducing and envelope-pushing in their depictions of humiliation and abuse, they had jurors in a criminal obscenity trial against the gonzo director begging the judge to be shown only short clips. We're talking "fisting," urination and defecation, and porn actresses made-up to look like children. Max Hardcore was sentenced to four years in prison by a Florida District Court.

Polanski lawyers accuse prosecutor of playing politics

By Eriq Gardner

In case the California Superior Court didn't get the memo, Roman Polanski's lawyers sent a reminder yesterday that they believe justice will be served by sentencing the fugitive filmmaker in absentia.

In a court brief filed yesterday, Polanski's lawyers suggest that prosecutors are playing politics by intentionally misleading Swiss officials with a false record of the case in order to secure his extradition illegally.

"Politics seems to be interfering with the just administration of the law," wrote Chad Hummel, the Manatt lawyer representing Polanski, perhaps implying that a recent move by Los Angeles county district attorney Steve Cooley to run for California attorney general might have something to do with his opposition to sentencing Polanski in absentia.

A California appeals court suggested that path last month in rejecting a motion to dismiss the case. Hummel highlights the 70-page decision to support this course of action. To paint the prosecutors as being unreasonable, Hummel contends that Cooley and federal authorities submitted an extradition request to the Swiss government based on false statements made in an affidavit by deputy district attorney David Walgren.

The Superior Court will consider the next step at a hearing on Friday.

Why was appeals court so sympathetic to Roman Polanski?

By Eriq Gardner

The 70-page denial of Roman Polanski's attempt to end his legal saga is surprising for its sympathetic review of events in the decades-old statutory rape case.

The three-judge appellate panel goes to extreme lengths to describe the factors that compelled Polanski to flee the country after admitting his crime in 1977 and suggests a great deal of disturbance at allegations of prosecutorial and judicial misconduct in the case.

On page 35, the justices decide that although Polanski's allegations possibly present a "very systemic issue of injustice and misconduct," the trial court didn't abuse its discretion by denying Polanski's request for relief.

The appeals court is kind enough to give the director his options now, starting on page 46. Most intriguing is the suggestion that his lawyers can request Polanski be sentenced in absentia. This would still be subject to a trial court's discretion, of course, but the justices write: "We are confident that the trial court could fashion a legal sentence that results in no further incarceration for Polanski."

Who says appeals courts aren't compassionate?

FBI finally makes an arrest over 'Wolverine' leak

By Eriq Gardner

The FBI has announced the capture of an individual connected with the leak of 20th Century Fox's "X-Men Origins: Wolverine."

Gilberto Sanchez was arrested at his Bronx, New York home this morning and is expected to go before a magistrate judge later today on charges of violating federal copyright law. According to the FBI, the 47-year-old man was indicted by a Los Angeles federal grand jury last week. A copy of the unsealed grand jury indictment indicates that Sanchez uploaded the film to file sharing network Megaupload.com under an alias. Information on how Sanchez allegedly obtained the feature film is still yet unknown. He faces up to three years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

The leak of "Wolverine" more than a month before its official theatrical release early this summer kicked off a firestorm of fury in Hollywood. In May, a News Corp executive estimated that the film had been downloaded four million times and the film topped piracy charts most of the summer.

"Wolverine" has raked in nearly $375 million in worldwide gross since its release. How much money the leak cost Fox will never be settled for certain.

Chris Weitz defends 'New Moon' pirate; Summit stays mum

By Eriq Gardner

Is three years in prison too much for a Chicago woman who was caught using a digital recording device during a screening of "The Twilight Saga: New Moon"?

Samantha Tumpach, 22, claims she was merely filming scenes at a Chicago-area Muvico Theater for her sister's 29th birthday party. Now, after being arrested and charged with a rarely invoked felony designed to prevent movie bootlegging, Tumpach has attracted an ally in her defense. "New Moon" director Chris Weitz tells the Chicago Sun-Times that "the case seems to me terribly unfair and I would like to do what I can to address this."

Weitz' quotes put the film's distributor, Summit Entertainment, in an uncomfortable PR spot. Even though it's the theater chain — not the studio — pushing the charges against Tumpach, Weitz says he has reached out to Summit to get involved. So far, Summit has remained publicly silent.

Our sympathy towards Tumpach is tempered by an annoyance at those who talk during movies. Who was it that suggested locking up theater gabbers and throwing away the key? 

It's also worth noting that "New Moon" may not have been the most valuable entertainment copyright infringed by Tumpach and her gathering that day. During the screening, the gang sang "Happy Birthday" and we doubt they bought a license from ASCAP to publicly perform this lucrative copyrighted song. What does Time Warner, who reportedly holds the publishing rights to "Happy Birthday" think about the injustice here?

OK, maybe Tumpach should get some leniency for not having sound mind to contact the theater owner and clear the act of taping within the establishment. Muvico obviously wanted to make a point and now that the Florida-based chain has gotten reporters everywhere to convey that the penalty for bootlegging carries "up to three years" in prison, it should probably back off — before Weitz shows up in court, a judge lets Tumpach off the hook, and the ordeal sends an entirely different public relations message. 

Man allegedly shown as drug informant on 'DEA' sues Spike TV, Al Roker

By Eriq Gardner

A few years ago, HBO's "The Wire" was one of the hottest shows on TV and the media was temporarily fascinated with urban youth life. After kids started sporting T-shirts that read, "Stop Snitching," some reporters rushed to interview drug enforcement officials on this phenomenon.

But how about filing a defamation lawsuit for snitching a snitch?

In a complaint that can easily be labeled a sign of our times, a New York individual named Iban Hernandez is suing producers and distributors of reality show called "DEA" after allegedly portraying him in a March episode as a "drug dealer" turned "confidential informant."

Hernandez says Viacom, Spike TV, MTV Networks and um, nice guy Al Roker, "seriously damaged" his reputation and violated his publicity and privacy rights by inadequately blurring his image and surroundings in the episode. Hernandez reports getting physical threats of harm from others in his community as a result of the portrayal. Here's the complaint.

The Spike show is produced by Al Roker Entertainment and offers a glimpse into the inner workings of the Drug Enforcement Agency, including life on the streets of the illegal narcotics trade. The series has been embraced by the DEA, which has even issued press releases touting "more action, more dope and more money than viewers have ever seen before" and "a front row seat to DEA's hard-charging, relentless special agents risking lives for the mission." 

Whose lives?

We've reached out to Spike, Al Roker Entertainment and the DEA and will update if they comment.

Is outsourcing to blame for missing Ryan Jenkins background check?

By Eriq Gardner

Two months ago, when a contestant on VH1's "Megan Wants a Millionaire" murdered his ex-wife and committed suicide, the network promptly cancelled the show. At the time, we wrote that "this episode is opening up discussion about the way that reality producers vet contestants' backgrounds."

There's now some more information about this subject, courtesy of a new lawsuit filed by the investigative agency Collective Intelligence that was hired by the show's producer, 51 Minds, to screen potential cast members, including Ryan Jenkins.

Collective Intelligence provides background searches for nearly 100 production companies, including Viacom entities. But the agency has a hole in its screening, saying that it does not perform criminal background checks outside the United States. As a result, the agency outsourced foreign background checks to other investigative agencies.

In a complaint filed last week in Illinois, Collective Intelligence blames another agency, Straightline International, for failing to uncover the fact that Jenkins was convicted in Canadian court of domestic battery for assaulting his ex-girlfriend. As a result of the oversight, and the sensational murder-suicide that made headlines and forced "Megan Wants a Millionaire" off the air, Collective Intelligence says its reputation has suffered and the agency has lost business from Viacom, ABC and other clients.

VH1 has given Collective Intelligence the opportunity to show that Straightline is at fault in this matter, according to the complaint, but the defendant has allegedly failed to cooperate with information requests. Collective Intelligence is suing for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and tortious interference.

Friction on Polanski legal team; what's his next move?

By Eriq Gardner

The problem with having a bunch of lawyers is that sometimes they don't always agree.

Earlier today, one of Roman Polanski's attorneys seemed to open up the possibility that the famed director would accept extradition to the United States. "If the procedure drags on, it is not impossible that Roman Polanski could choose to go and explain himself in the United States, where there are some arguments in his favor," Polanski's lawyer Georges Kiejman told French radio.

But another member of Polanski's legal team is discounting that chess move. French attorney Herve Temine says there has been "no change in strategy" and that Polanski will "continue to fight extradition."

Polanski may need to get his other lawyers, including Chad Hummel or Reid Weingarten, to weigh in as a tie-breaker.

It's hard to know exactly how much time Polanski figures to serve in U.S. jail, making the calculus on Polanski's best legal course tough to compute. Should he gamble on the small probability that he successfully avoids a flight back to the U.S.? Or maybe put his chips on the possibility that any U.S. jail sentence would be shorter than the amount of depressing time he'll spend fighting in Swiss detention?

We guess that's why you hire a bunch of lawyers.