Selma Blair's 2016 Plane Incident May Complicate Medical-Emergency Defense, Attorney Says

Selma Blair's medical-emergency defense could face serious legal challenges as a veteran criminal defense attorney warns her previously reported in-flight incident may complicate her latest criminal case, OK! can exclusively reveal.

In an exclusive interview with OK!, Las Vegas criminal defense attorney Peter S. Christiansen, who is not representing the actress, warned that Blair's legal team could face difficult questions about her medical history, previous behavior, and whether the alleged conduct aboard a Delta flight was involuntary.

Blair's representatives have attributed the alleged incident to a medical emergency, but Christiansen cautioned that such an explanation alone may not be enough to resolve the criminal allegations.

"I can tell you that medical records are going to matter a lot more than a press statement," Christiansen exclusively told OK!

He explained that attorneys would need medical records created immediately after the incident, testing results, medication history, and expert testimony connecting Blair's reported condition to her alleged behavior.

"Prosecutors will attack the timeline, questioning if the behavior was truly medically involuntary," he warned.

Christiansen added that prosecutors could examine whether Blair appeared lucid before or after the incident and whether other factors contributed to her alleged actions.

Blair's reported 2016 in-flight incident could also become a contentious issue if either side attempts to introduce it during legal proceedings.

"It cuts both ways, and both sides will try to weaponize it," Christiansen explained.

According to the attorney, prosecutors could argue that a previous episode raises questions about whether Blair knew she was vulnerable to similar circumstances. However, he said the defense could use documented medical history to argue that the latest alleged incident was consistent with an existing condition.

"Two incidents happening on airplanes don't automatically make them the same event legally," he cautioned.

Christiansen also addressed allegations involving Blair reportedly biting three high-profile celebrities, explaining that previous accusations would not automatically become admissible evidence.

"Prosecutors can try to bring that into the courtroom, but that doesn't mean the jury will hear it," he said.

He emphasized that prosecutors generally cannot introduce previous misconduct simply to suggest someone acted similarly again.

"Calling three stories 'biting incidents' doesn't magically make them a pattern," Christiansen added.

With Blair reportedly facing up to seven years behind bars, Christiansen warned that the potential maximum sentence does not necessarily predict the outcome.

"Yeah, seven years makes for a great headline, but it doesn't tell you what's actually going to happen here," he said.

He explained that medical evidence, alleged injuries, and the strength of the prosecution's case could influence negotiations and sentencing.

Christiansen also raised concerns about the possibility of separate state and federal proceedings.

"The biggest hurdle is pretty simple here... Proving it was a medical emergency," he concluded.