I am very disappointed JeffAtlanta. That is a response I would expect on the DU. A half true, wrapped in a partial truth. What about violating a judges order and a 2nd provable offense of underage drinking. You know damn well they were NOT give 30 days for drinking at the prom they were let go.
This society is absolutely doomed if we cannot accept responsibility for our actions and speak the WHOLE truth.
You are in error. She was not tried or charged for any offense beyond drinking at the prom. Since she was not charged or tried on those offenses, there is no way that she can serve time for them.
The website was used as evidence that she violated her probation for the charge of underage drinking at her prom - nothing more. When one violates their probation, the judge can then revisit the sentencing on the ORGINAL CHARGE. That is what happened here and the judge gave her 30 days in jail.
BTW, I see where you are coming from since they were charged with contempt of court rather than just revisiting the sentence of the original charge.
I see this as an abuse of power by the judge. If the person can't fulfill the terms of the probation then the sentence should simply be revisited.
FWIW, a far more detailed article at the link below seems to indicate that a new charge of contempt of court was not issued and the original sentences were only revised.
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060127/NEWS03/601270321/1005
The girls were idiots for going to court without a lawyer and thinking that just crying for the judge would smooth things over.