Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Law Students Blogs -> Nuts & Boalts

Law Students

: Nuts & Boalts

Is Mel Gibson a victim?

Like most people with an internet connection, I lost irretrievable minutes of my life listening to Mel Gibson's racist, enraged, and occasionally terrifying telephone conversations with the mother of his child this week. I stopped listening after the third one, but I think we're on tape number five now. Obviously, the things Gibson says are abhorrent and prove that he is an irredeemable asshole who should never again be respected or admired by anyone. Even so, I can't seem to figure out why he is not also the victim of a crime.

California's anti-recording statute basically makes it a crime to record a private conversation unless both parties to the conversation consent. Since it's doubtful Gibson consented to these recordings, the only possibly applicable exceptions are Sections 633.5 and 633.6, which state:

633.5. Nothing in Section 631, 632, 632.5, 632.6, or 632.7 prohibits one party to a confidential communication from recording the communication for the purpose of obtaining evidence reasonably believed to relate to the commission by another party to the communication of the crime of extortion, kidnapping, bribery, any felony involving violence against the person, or a violation of Section 653m.

633.6. (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of this chapter, and in accordance with federal law, upon the request of a victim of domestic violence who is seeking a domestic violence restraining order, a judge issuing the order may include a provision in the order that permits the victim to record any prohibited communication made to him or her by the perpetrator.

Concrete information on whether and when Oksana Grigorieva filed for a restraining order is hard to come by, so her best bet is probably Section 633.5. But under that section, she would have to prove she made the recordings for the purpose of obtaining evidence related to a felony, and not for some other purpose, like justifiably ruining what's left of Gibson's miserable career. Releasing the tapes to RadarOnline every couple of days seems to undercut that argument.

So what do you think, California legal experts? Is there a crime here? Would any prosecutor bother pursuing it? Do any of you still like Braveheart? Why?

Full post as published by Nuts & Boalts on July 15, 2010 (boomark / email).