ARE THE MEL GIBSON TAPES ADMISSIBLE IN COURT?

The lovely couple

Legal Analysis

By Blogonaut


One cannot turn on the television without being bombarded with outtakes from audio recordings of Mel Gibson’s ex calmly pushing his buttons as she secretly records his diatribes. What can we say, the bitch is evil, and he is nuts.

But are the tapes admissible in court?

At least one other blog has tried to definitively answer that question and failed miserably. But since we have our own “legal expert” (moi), before you finish reading this post you will know the answer.

The stakes are high for what’s-her-name, the Russian that Gibson now calls the “Goldigger”, because if there is no applicable statutory exception, each time Gibson’s money loving ex-GF recorded the actor that Hollywood loves to hate, she committed a violation of California Penal Code Section 632—which is punishable by a jail term of 12 months OR 16 months, two years, or three years in state prison (that’s for each recording).

So let’s get to the exceptions.

Yes, there are several very specific and very limited exceptions to the criminal statute, that are limited by the conjunctive requirements of intent, subject matter, and scope:

The recording must be made for the purpose of gathering evidence that the person reasonably believes relates to the commission of the crimes of:

1. Extortion;

2. Kidnapping;

3. Bribery;

4. Any crime involving violence against the person;

5. Harassing telephone calls.

There are two categories that are arguably applicable.

The first is #4—any crime involving violence against the person.

But remember, the Implanted One must not only actually believe that the scope of the recorded conversation is limited to evidence that Mel Gibson hit her, that belief must be reasonable. So next time that you visit Radar.com to give a listen to Ms. Boobs calmly baiting Mad Mel into a rage ask yourself—is this conversation reasonably related to incidents wherein the most hated man in Hollywood hit the Russian temptress? Or is she just pushing Mel’s buttons in aid of getting him to yell, scream, and use abusive language so she can damage the actor-producer in the tabloid media?

We think it is quite obviously the later.

But wait; there is another potentially applicable exception: #5—gathering evidence of harassing phone calls.

If the Implanted One can establish a prior pattern of Mad Mel calling her residence at all hours of the night and day making harassing phone calls, then all recordings that she made over the phone after that harassment commenced are fair game.

Additionally, one must ask, was the required purpose of the recordings--to gather evidence of on of the specified crimes--the purpose for which the recordings were made? Remember, in addition to the other requirements, the purpose of the recordings must be to gather evidence of one of the enumerated crimes--and no other.

Of course, the best evidence of Miss Boob’s intent is: What subsequent use did she make of the tapes?

Did she immediately turn the tapes over to law enforcement to aid in a prosecution for domestic battery and/or harassing phone calls?

Or did she instead give the recordings to a tabloid publication in aid of damaging what is left of Mad Mel’s reputation?

We all know the answer to that question, don’t we. The answer is clear even if you hate Mel Gibson.

The Implanted One did not give the tapes to police at all, she sent the tapes to Radar on-line to embarrass the actor and to cause as much damage to him in the public eye as possible.

Therefore, in our opinion, no exception applies, our Russian Beauty does not pass go, and she is guilty of multiple violations of Penal Code Section 632.

In addition, by the express terms of Penal Code Section 632, the tapes are not admissible in any prosecution against the actor for domestic violence (not that the tapes would be necessary to prove that all his ex wants for Christmas is two front teeth—and why).

The only question is will the Los Angeles District Attorney have the guts, in an election year when he is running for California Attorney General, to charge a domestic violence victim with illegally taping her abuser? Because the Implanted One would bear the burden of proving in any Section 632 prosecution that her intent was evidence gathering as specified, and that she cannot do--no way.

In our opinion both parties could use some time in jail. And then we can all go back to watching the BP underwater webcam.