PDA

View Full Version : Leonard Little found innocent of drunken driving


texan279
04-02-2005, 01:35 AM
LINK (http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/3508528)

CLAYTON, Mo. (AP) - St. Louis Rams defensive end Leonard Little was found innocent of drunken driving Friday by a St. Louis County Circuit jury.

Jurors ruled that Little was speeding at the time of his arrest April 24 on Interstate 64 in a St. Louis suburb. He will be sentenced on that charge May 6.
"We're absolutely thrilled," said Little's lawyer, Scott Rosenblum. "Couldn't be happier."

Little will not be considered a persistent offender, which had been a possibility under the charges because he pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter in a 1998 drunken-driving accident in downtown St. Louis that killed 47-year-old Susan Gutweiler.

Little served three months in jail, completed 1,000 hours of community service and four years of probation for the earlier crime. He was also suspended without pay for the first half of the 1999 season.

The prosecution argued in this case that Little failed several field sobriety tests when stopped for speeding and refused to be chemically tested for alcohol when taken into custody.

Rosenblum countered that his client should be cleared, arguing in part that the officer at the scene failed to give Little the proper instructions.

Rosenblum said during the trial that Little had consumed two beers and was not intoxicated when stopped by police, who reportedly found Little driving 78 mph in a 55-mph zone.

Little had 46 tackles, 6 Ĺ sacks and recovered four fumbles last season. He was a Pro Bowl selection in 2003.

wags
04-02-2005, 01:44 AM
I guess Leonard Little's middle name is Kennedy.

texan279
04-02-2005, 01:50 AM
Something like that, he should have gone to jail twice already...

wags
04-02-2005, 01:57 AM
Just to add insult to injury: The man who lost his wife because of Little is the photographer for the St. Louis Rams. He still shoots photos for the team and has to look at the man who killed his wife every week.

texan279
04-02-2005, 02:02 AM
Are you serious? That is horrible. I guess the rich can buy innocence through their high priced lawyers...I am not saying he killed her intentionally, but he was drunk, it's called intoxication manslaughter. I know if I ever killed anyone in any way, unless it is in self defense or to protect my family, I do not know how I would live with myself. Hope your happy Mr. Little...

wags
04-02-2005, 02:05 AM
Are you serious? That is horrible. I guess the rich can buy innocence through their high priced lawyers...

ESPN did a story a story on this man and his son, and the whole time I was just thinking "you're kidding me." I can't imagine what goes through this guys mind when he sees Little on that field, and hears people cheering him (Little).

texan279
04-02-2005, 02:07 AM
If it was me I think I would have found another job...but still I fell horrible for him and his son....and I guarantee if it was me or you that hit and killed that poor woman, we would be sitting behind bars right now...

blockhead83
04-02-2005, 03:58 AM
This guy just makes me sick. He kills somebody driving drunk, and what do you know, he goes and drives after drinking again. That's a complete lack of respect for the woman he killed, to go and tempt fate like that a second time. I was hoping he'd be convicted and never see the playing field again...

Errant Hothy
04-02-2005, 08:01 AM
LINK (http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/3508528)

Little will not be considered a persistent offender, which had been a possibility under the charges because he pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter in a 1998 drunken-driving accident in downtown St. Louis that killed 47-year-old Susan Gutweiler.

Little served three months in jail, completed 1,000 hours of community service and four years of probation for the earlier crime. He was also suspended without pay for the first half of the 1999 season.

There is just something wrong with this. I mean he KILLED a woman and served 3 months in jail . And the NFL is no better, only an 8 game supension what a joke. I hope that if a Texan committed the same crime he would no longer be aTexan.

nunusguy
04-02-2005, 08:29 AM
I guess I'm a real square old fashin type of guy, probably far too puritanical
for my own good, but how do these trial lawyers keep getting these guys off and puting them back in a vehicle. I know they get a lot of money from a defendant like this, but these lawyers have familty right - children, spouse,
parents, siblings, etc. How can you keep being a party to putting these killers
back on the street knowing your loved ones are on those same streets ?

jags98
04-02-2005, 01:37 PM
:thumbdown This countries justice system is really starting to show how unfair it is.

DRIFTAWAY
04-02-2005, 03:53 PM
My younger brother is a lawyer, and he should take this case up and bring Little to justice, he should definitly be charged and put in jail. After the death he caused, he should not have been free in the first place, and this is just reasoning in:

Because you have wealth or power the law doesn't refer to you.

jags98
04-02-2005, 10:53 PM
I'd like to hear what Government you prefer as more fair, and more honest when it comes to legal matters.
There is no other way I just think its unfair to have a football player able to miss out on prison time when people like you and me would be going to prison in a heartbeat. :listening

DRIFTAWAY
04-03-2005, 01:26 AM
It doesnt take a NFL-aholic to let him go. They look at this man and see a wealthy professional athlete. They know that kids look up to him as role models and so forth, so they let him go.

It's sort of like when Jamal Lewis had to serve Jail Time it was arranged so he could serve it in the offseason. If i was to get charged, do you think they'd let me wait and serve it when i take my yearly vacation from work?

D-ReK
04-03-2005, 03:21 AM
Little was found innocent, therefore I am going to presume that he was innocent...None of us were in the car that night with Little, so we are all basically going on hearsay...Little is an easily dislikable person, but if he was found innocent by a jury of his peers, then I think it's safe to say he wasn't intoxicated...

DRIFTAWAY
04-03-2005, 10:20 AM
Maybe the Jury said innocent, because they look at a wealthy famous figure, and they know him going to jail would upset alot of children looking up to him. Its just that these day it seems as if celebrities/athletes get off easy, If this trial happened to you or me, I'd think the chances of us being guilty just went up 50%. Jury says innocent because he can appoint some big name lawyer to appeal, while we are nobodies with not enough money to do any of that

TexanExile
04-03-2005, 09:05 PM
I think it probably had more to do with the kind of representation he was able to buy, not what he did for a living. Good lawyers make a world of difference. And he may be "not guilty" in this case, but he doggone sure ain't innocent.

Whatever. Just hire a freaking driver, willya, Little? You make enough money.

ledzeppelin229
04-03-2005, 09:26 PM
I'd like to hear what Government you prefer as more fair, and more honest when it comes to legal matters.

I don't think this is your intention because I feel like you're one of the more intelligent posters around here, but that statement has a major flaw to it. This isn't about what other "government" might be more fair or honest, and just because this one might be better than all the others, doesn't mean there aren't any flaws in it now and then that still need to be addressed at times.

Hervoyel
04-03-2005, 10:57 PM
I'd like to hear what Government you prefer as more fair, and more honest when it comes to legal matters.

Well, I didn't make the original statement but I have an answer for you.

I'd prefer the one we have. I'd just like to see it run the way it was intended. For some time I've wondered why chemical tests for alcohol or drugs are even optional. I'm serious too. I can't think of one single good reason why anyone should even have a right to refuse a blood/breath/urine test.

If you pass it end of story and no harm done. If you fail it then you get exactly what you deserved.

Lucky
04-03-2005, 11:48 PM
I can't think of one single good reason why anyone should even have a right to refuse a blood/breath/urine test.
The Fourth Amendment? If a warrant is obtained, your blood/breath/urine can be tested without your permission. Else, it's illegal search & seizure. Letís not toss out a Constitution thatís worked for so many years just because a jury misses a verdict now & then. Itís a system made up of people, and people sometimes make mistakes.

Hervoyel
04-04-2005, 09:31 AM
Lets also not attempt to wrap a 200+ year old document around a very modern issue to the deteriment of us all. The application of the Constitution to situations and circumstances that did not exist and were unforseeable when it was written is an iffy business at best. If I am not mistaken (and this only applies to Texas to the best of my knowledge) you consent to being tested when you get your drivers license. This is one of the reasons why your license gets suspended (or at the least the wheels go into motion to do this) if you refuse to submit to a blood/breath/urine test.

People have figured out how to play the system and get around this without giving the sample for the test and without losing their license and here I simply say the system needs to work as intended. Why or how there is a loophole I do not understand because the situation is pretty clear. If you want or need to drive on public roads then you agree to give a sample on demand. End of story and no Fourth Amendment issue.

I believe that this should be nation wide. Agreeing to give a sample on demand should be a condition of being issued a DL and refusal to comply should mean that you lose your drivers license with zero wiggle room to get out of it happening.

If you're driving on public roads and are suspected of DUI then a test answers the question without a doubt. It's not unreasonable given the number of people every year who are killed or injured by drunk drivers for us to submit to a blood alcohol level and I assert that the reason it's considered so is because some lawyer managed to tie the two together while defending his drunk driving, should have had his butt thrown into jail client.

You know, someday there's not even going to be a sample required. Someday it's going to be possible for them to walk by you, wave a little handheld unit in your general direction "Dr McCoy style" and they'll have an answer (He's drunk Jim!). When that happens will that be an unreasonable search and seizure? Will that be a violation of someones right to lie about being drunk as a skunk? I'm willing to bet it will be.

Lucky
04-04-2005, 09:56 PM
Lets also not attempt to wrap a 200+ year old document around a very modern issue to the deteriment of us all.
200 years may seem like a very long time. But it's but a blink of an eye in the span of human history. The shapers of the Constitution knew human nature and tried to protect the freedoms of the individual from the capriciousness of the powerful. Maybe a government with absolute power will look after your best interests. Maybe not. They didnít want a benevolent dictatorship, & neither do I. The Constitution is just as valid a document today as it was then.

Most people who kill while driving drunk go to prison. Little is the aberration. I donít want to endanger my freedom because the Littles get over every once in a while. The Littles always will get over once in a while. In order to keep my freedom, Iím willing to accept that.