During her release, she's apparently been charged with driving under a suspended license. That was a dumb thing to do--especially because under the rules about the way cases are assigned, she ends up back in front of the same judge that wanted her to do six months in jail. (He made sure she stayed locked up today.)
I haven't understood why this is the case the Enquirer decided needed so much attention. Yes, the woman drove without a license, hit and injured a bicyclist (unintentionally), and left the scene of the accident. But there have been people convicted of arguably more serious offenses (at least to the extent they involve assault, an intentionally violent offense) who have been released despite being ordered to serve time. Why not pick out one of those cases?
The answer, perhaps, comes in today's story. For the first time (or at least the first time I've noticed), the Enquirer offers a little bit of a description of the bicyclist who was injured in the car accident:
He or she is a photographer for the Enquirer.
I guess maybe it's not so hard to figure out why that case is garnering so much ink, after all.