Jump to content

D-Train Pleads Not Guilty


Wild Card
 Share

Recommended Posts

Marlins' Willis Pleads Not Guilty to DUI Charge

Florida Pitcher Arrested for Drunk Driving in December

AP Sports

MIAMI (Jan. 10) - Florida Marlins pitcher Dontrelle Willis pleaded not guilty to drunken driving in Miami Beach, his attorney said Wednesday.

 

Willis entered the plea in writing and did not appear in court, attorney Robert Reiff said. Reiff declined further comment.

 

The 2003 NL Rookie of the Year was arrested Dec. 22 around 4 a.m. ET after an officer noticed he had double-parked his black Bentley along a South Beach street lined with nightclubs, according to a police report.

 

The officer said Willis had watery eyes, slurred speech and appeared "confused and disoriented."

 

Sounds to me like Willis has a 99% chance at winning. From what I can gather, he technically wasn't driving when police arrested him since they said they stopped him when his car was merely double-parked, so they don't even know if he was driving at all. Plus, he refused the breathalyzer, so they don't even have proof he was intoxicated. I don't even see how the state/county has a case...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i wouldn't say he's getting away free with this. the first time furcal got caught, he wasn't even operating the car, but the keys were in the car in a parking lot at 4 in the morning. furcal was actually sleeping and he still got busted. i'm not sure how different florida law is from georgia's, but if this applies, he's going to get the charges, even though he wasn't driving the car.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i wouldn't say he's getting away free with this. the first time furcal got caught, he wasn't even operating the car, but the keys were in the car in a parking lot at 4 in the morning. furcal was actually sleeping and he still got busted. i'm not sure how different florida law is from georgia's, but if this applies, he's going to get the charges, even though he wasn't driving the car.

Furcal blew a .11, .03 above the legal limit, in 2000. The second time, he blew a .127. Both times he blew. Dontrelle did not. It's a big difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, this didnt need its own thread.

 

Second, why he would be arrested if he was not in actual, physical control of his vehicle is beyond me and I don't think its a stretch to say that he and his legal advisers have a relatively strong civil suit against the officer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, this didnt need its own thread.

 

Second, why he would be arrested if he was not in actual, physical control of his vehicle is beyond me and I don't think its a stretch to say that he and his legal advisers have a relatively strong civil suit against the officer.

 

I'm assuming "double parked" can also translate to the vehicle still being on while the Pee-Train was doing his thing. In which case, he's going to jail if he doesn't pass the field sobriety tests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, this didnt need its own thread.

 

Second, why he would be arrested if he was not in actual, physical control of his vehicle is beyond me and I don't think its a stretch to say that he and his legal advisers have a relatively strong civil suit against the officer.

 

I'm assuming "double parked" can also translate to the vehicle still being on while the Pee-Train was doing his thing. In which case, he's going to jail if he doesn't pass the field sobriety tests.

 

 

 

 

yes but that is a tremendous stretch for someone being in actual, physical control of the vehicle (translation = the cop was an a-hole with no discretion).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, this didnt need its own thread.

 

Second, why he would be arrested if he was not in actual, physical control of his vehicle is beyond me and I don't think its a stretch to say that he and his legal advisers have a relatively strong civil suit against the officer.

 

I'm assuming "double parked" can also translate to the vehicle still being on while the Pee-Train was doing his thing. In which case, he's going to jail if he doesn't pass the field sobriety tests.

 

 

 

 

yes but that is a tremendous stretch for someone being in actual, physical control of the vehicle (translation = the cop was an a-hole with no discretion).

 

If the car's on, I'm pretty sure that's by the book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, this didnt need its own thread.

 

Second, why he would be arrested if he was not in actual, physical control of his vehicle is beyond me and I don't think its a stretch to say that he and his legal advisers have a relatively strong civil suit against the officer.

 

I'm assuming "double parked" can also translate to the vehicle still being on while the Pee-Train was doing his thing. In which case, he's going to jail if he doesn't pass the field sobriety tests.

 

 

 

 

yes but that is a tremendous stretch for someone being in actual, physical control of the vehicle (translation = the cop was an a-hole with no discretion).

 

If the car's on, I'm pretty sure that's by the book.

 

 

 

 

Without getting too involved with this lets just say that the State Attorney's Office won't even go for a conviction.

 

They'll offer him a very soft plea deal because their case is ridiculously weak (no breathalyzer, no driving pattern observed and he's completely out of the vehicle).

 

Dontrelle's attorneys will either go to trial because they feel they can get a not guilty or he'll take the plea which will involve losing his DL for a year and some community service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, this didnt need its own thread.

 

Second, why he would be arrested if he was not in actual, physical control of his vehicle is beyond me and I don't think its a stretch to say that he and his legal advisers have a relatively strong civil suit against the officer.

 

I'm assuming "double parked" can also translate to the vehicle still being on while the Pee-Train was doing his thing. In which case, he's going to jail if he doesn't pass the field sobriety tests.

 

 

 

 

yes but that is a tremendous stretch for someone being in actual, physical control of the vehicle (translation = the cop was an a-hole with no discretion).

 

If the car's on, I'm pretty sure that's by the book.

 

 

 

 

Without getting too involved with this lets just say that the State Attorney's Office won't even go for a conviction.

 

They'll offer him a very soft plea deal because their case is ridiculously weak (no breathalyzer, no driving pattern observed and he's completely out of the vehicle).

 

Dontrelle's attorneys will either go to trial because they feel they can get a not guilty or he'll take the plea which will involve losing his DL for a year and some community service.

 

99 times out of 100 if you refuse the breathalizer the best the state can get is a plea deal. Dontrelle did the smart thing, but the police officer did the right thing since Dontrelle was obviously intoxicated and was (at some point) under control of his vehicle, most likely while intoxicated.

 

It would have been inappropriate for the police officer to simply let him go, and if he was urinating in public and disorderly, he had to go downtown, no way do you just drive him home or let him go, bad things could have happened to Dontrelle and anyone around him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, this didnt need its own thread.

 

Second, why he would be arrested if he was not in actual, physical control of his vehicle is beyond me and I don't think its a stretch to say that he and his legal advisers have a relatively strong civil suit against the officer.

 

I'm assuming "double parked" can also translate to the vehicle still being on while the Pee-Train was doing his thing. In which case, he's going to jail if he doesn't pass the field sobriety tests.

 

 

 

 

yes but that is a tremendous stretch for someone being in actual, physical control of the vehicle (translation = the cop was an a-hole with no discretion).

 

If the car's on, I'm pretty sure that's by the book.

 

 

 

 

Without getting too involved with this lets just say that the State Attorney's Office won't even go for a conviction.

 

They'll offer him a very soft plea deal because their case is ridiculously weak (no breathalyzer, no driving pattern observed and he's completely out of the vehicle).

 

Dontrelle's attorneys will either go to trial because they feel they can get a not guilty or he'll take the plea which will involve losing his DL for a year and some community service.

 

99 times out of 100 if you refuse the breathalizer the best the state can get is a plea deal. Dontrelle did the smart thing, but the police officer did the right thing since Dontrelle was obviously intoxicated and was (at some point) under control of his vehicle, most likely while intoxicated.

 

It would have been inappropriate for the police officer to simply let him go, and if he was urinating in public and disorderly, he had to go downtown, no way do you just drive him home or let him go, bad things could have happened to Dontrelle and anyone around him.

 

 

 

 

Just for clarification, you don't have probable cause to arrest someone because they're drunk and you have a suspicion (or knowledge for that matter) that they HAD been driving at some point. Your first paragraph implies otherwise.

 

Yes it would have been inappropriate for the officer to simply let Dontrelle go on his way. But could he have towed his vehicle and called him a cab?

 

Absofu**inlutely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a licensed attorney in Florida. Dontrelle will be found not guilty because he refused the breathalyzer. They don't have any concrete evidence. The case will be dismissed. But, he will lose his license for one year.

 

End of story.

 

 

 

 

Im not going to say how Im involved in FL law but its not as simple as you have just stated. Ive seen defendants not give a breathe sample but go on to lose jury trials because the roadside exercises/driving pattern were on video.

 

But yes like I previously said, he will not be found guilty. The evidence is severely lacking in this case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a licensed attorney in Florida. Dontrelle will be found not guilty because he refused the breathalyzer. They don't have any concrete evidence. The case will be dismissed. But, he will lose his license for one year.

 

End of story.

 

 

 

 

Im not going to say how Im involved in FL law but its not as simple as you have just stated. Ive seen defendants not give a breathe sample but go on to lose jury trials because the roadside exercises/driving pattern were on video.

 

But yes like I previously said, he will not be found guilty. The evidence is severely lacking in this case.

 

Right. They have no concrete evidence, as I said above. It's possible that as a matter of law he's not guilty. If so, the case will be dismissed and will never come before a jury.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a licensed attorney in Florida. Dontrelle will be found not guilty because he refused the breathalyzer. They don't have any concrete evidence. The case will be dismissed. But, he will lose his license for one year.

 

End of story.

 

 

 

 

Im not going to say how Im involved in FL law but its not as simple as you have just stated. Ive seen defendants not give a breathe sample but go on to lose jury trials because the roadside exercises/driving pattern were on video.

 

But yes like I previously said, he will not be found guilty. The evidence is severely lacking in this case.

Did he do the field sobriety test? From what I heard, he didn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a licensed attorney in Florida. Dontrelle will be found not guilty because he refused the breathalyzer. They don't have any concrete evidence. The case will be dismissed. But, he will lose his license for one year.

 

End of story.

 

 

 

 

Im not going to say how Im involved in FL law but its not as simple as you have just stated. Ive seen defendants not give a breathe sample but go on to lose jury trials because the roadside exercises/driving pattern were on video.

 

But yes like I previously said, he will not be found guilty. The evidence is severely lacking in this case.

Did he do the field sobriety test? From what I heard, he didn't.

 

 

 

He did the Field Sobriety Exercises but not the Breathelyzer. They are 2 completely different things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...