Justin Timberlake was not intoxicated when he was arrested for drink-driving, his lawyer has said as he seeks to have the charge dismissed.
Lawyer Edward Burke has claimed police made “errors” in submitted documents in Timberlake’s case.
However a local judge has ordered the 43-year-old singer to be re-arraigned on 2 August with the corrected paperwork.
At the time of his arrest on 18 June, police said Timberlake failed to stop at a stop sign and could not stay in his lane while driving in Long Island, New York state.
Court documents stated his eyes were “bloodshot and glassy”.
The SexyBack singer had reportedly been having dinner with friends before he left a restaurant and was pulled over by police.
On Friday, Justice Carl Irace said Timberlake, who is currently on tour in Europe, could appear virtually for the court hearing on 2 August.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Timberlake’s car caught on CCTV
Timberlake did not attend Friday’s hearing as his appearance was waived in advance.
After the hearing, Mr Burke said police made “very significant errors” in the case and he expects the charge to be dismissed.
“He was not intoxicated,” Mr Burke said outside court. “I’ll say it again. Justin Timberlake was not intoxicated.”
Suffolk County district attorney Ray Tierney’s office, which is prosecuting the case, described the paperwork issue as a “ministerial error” and that an amended charging document was filed on 2 July.
“The facts and circumstance of the case have not been changed or amended,” spokesperson Emily O’Neil said.
Read more:
Timberlake appears to joke about arrest
Star addresses ‘tough week’ at gig
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
Mr Burke suggested there were other problems with the arrest documents but did not give any further details.
“In court today, you heard the district attorney try to fix one of those errors,” he said. “But that’s just one and there are many others.
“Sometimes the police make mistakes and this is just one of those instances.”
Ms O’Neil responded by saying: “We stand ready to litigate the underlying facts of this case in court, rather than in the press.”
