In a recently released statement shortly following his arrest, Sutherland publicly apologized for his poor judgment. He showed character to the world and, perhaps more importantly, to the court. This was not the case for Sutherland and his lawyer to be cowboys and vigorously fight the case regardless of the merits of the DUI charges against him or the availability of legal defenses if any there were. Criminal defense lawyers, often in a self-serving fashion, sometimes are tempted to turn up the ante (and publicity) when a celebrity case is involved. Berk did not fall into this trap because she knew better.

Assume for a second that Sutherland had a viable case. Let’s say he had a meritorious argument that he was below the legal limit of 0.08 percent of blood alcohol at the time of driving. Perhaps the cops messed up the blood alcohol test procedurally and there was a way to throw it out of court. In another possible scenario, perhaps Sutherland's stop, detention and subsequent arrest were illegal. In short, assume Sutherland had a case he could have taken to a jury trial and won because he had good facts, good lawyer and his celebrity status on his side. Bottom line here – absolutely none of it would have mattered -- and defiance and legal heroics would have most inevitably backfired. Striking a quick plea agreement with the city attorneys and showing unequivocal repentance was the right call no doubt. Why? Because Sutherland was facing probation violation.

Sutherland was still on probation from his DUI conviction in 2004. This means that he was not supposed to drive with any measurable amount of alcohol. One drink in his system would have been sufficient for a violation. He was also required to disclose the fact of his probation to police and submit to an alcohol test. Small chance of a successful legal challenge based on illegal search and seizure here. Moreover, Sutherland would have had to fight probation violation accusation not in front of a jury of his peers (where his celebrity status might have been an asset), but in a hearing decided by a judge in whose eyes his fame most likely would have been a liability. In a probation violation the judge calls the facts as he or she sees them based upon a significantly lower evidentiary standard (preponderance of evidence) than proof beyond reasonable doubt. If found in violation, Sutherland would have been re-sentenced on the 2004 case and faced up to 6 months in county jail even if he had beaten the present case.

In probation violation situations, the judge does pretty much what he/she wants and Sutherland was a lame duck. Judges and prosecution like acceptance of responsibility, remorse and contrition, especially when such expressions are quick and sincere or at least come across as such. This is arguably among the best and most humane features of our criminal justice systems - the fact that when a criminal defendant behaves right after the fact of crime it matters and often it works (well – ok – it works sometimes). Often, the best and only thing a lame duck can do - even if one's name is Keifer Sutherland, Jack Bauer or some other star or superman - is to admit the charge or violation, accept responsibility and convince the prosecution and the judge that the duck has learned his lesson, is remorseful and in the future will do better.

As a result Sutherland got a good deal - better than standard in similar situations, in my humble view, given his probation status, the fact that this is his second DUI in less than 10 years and that he has faced DUI related charges total of 4 times already.  The plea bargain of 48 days in county jail, with the flexibility of serving his sentence so as not to interfere with the shooting of the "24" show, is a very good result indeed.  Moreover, the quick and relatively quiet resolution might serve to keep this case low key, which could allow Sutherland to serve his sentence on electronic monitoring on house arrest and/or obtain early release.

For contrast, look no further than the Paris Hilton case. In a much easier probation violation case Hilton made a mess of it by initially fighting the charges which inexorably lead to a media circus drama. As a result, three things happened: (1) the judge was pissed, (2) the judge was pissed and (3) the judge was pissed.  In probation violations all that matters is whether the judge is pissed and the fact that judges are political creatures. The media frenzy surrounding the Hilton case made it impossible for the judge to give her any break even if he had wanted to because when put under the microscope of public scrutiny judges feel they absolutely must dish out tough sentences, especially to spoiled and unrepentant celebrities. Hilton did not get a good sentencing result notwithstanding the fine and valiant effort by her last attorney Richard Hutton. She should have gotten electronic house arrest and early release which are standard for non-violent misdemeanor convictions in Los Angeles County.

Sutherland and his lawyer seem to understand that in certain situations the best a celebrity can hope for is to be treated like every one else. Sutherland is shooting for a standard deal - perhaps somewhat better.