Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Shivers pleads guilty to DUI

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • #1

    Shivers pleads guilty to DUI

    FYI, according to todays post dispatch, shivers has pleaded guilty to a DUI incident that occured in february in arizona. Speculation is that this incident may explain why he slipped in the draft. Interesting, especially in light of the Leonard Little situation.

    Now this should lead to an interesting debate on the board....

    ramming speed to all

    general counsel
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Shivers pleads guilty to DUI

    LOL,
    you got to be kidding me.
    Another drunk on the team. Where do the Rams find these guys?

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Shivers pleads guilty to DUI

      Originally posted by coy bacon
      LOL,
      you got to be kidding me.
      Another drunk on the team. Where do the Rams find these guys?
      Maybe the Rams believe in rehabilition and forgiveness?

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Shivers pleads guilty to DUI

        Originally posted by NickSeiler
        Maybe the Rams believe in rehabilition and forgiveness?
        Yes, but do the players they're forgiving believe in it? Apparently, Little might not.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Shivers pleads guilty to DUI

          Originally posted by Bob L. Head
          Yes, but do the players they're forgiving believe in it? Apparently, Little might not.
          Touché, but then again, that's just Little.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Shivers pleads guilty to DUI

            Well, I can't remember when every player was a choir boy.....no offense to Bob.L.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Shivers pleads guilty to DUI

              Originally posted by txramsfan
              Well, I can't remember when every player was a choir boy.....no offense to Bob.L.
              None taken. And trust me: despite my diminutive size and ceramic body, when I was young, I had my early mornings where I would have been better off with a designated bobbler. You might even say "but for the grace of God..."

              But, it's one thing to be a "bad boy" and another entirely to cause an accident that klls somebody. I was all for giving Little another shot the first time, but if the allegations are true this time it will be tough for me to argue that now. I guess that was my point, if I had one. Or maybe it was that I think that had I been involved in what Little was, I would have stayed stone cold sober. I think so. Maybe.

              Comment

              Previous template Next

              Related Topics

              Collapse
              • RamDez
                Little trial sure to spark debate
                by RamDez
                Little trial sure to spark debate
                By William C. Lhotka
                Post-Dispatch
                Saturday, Mar. 26 2005

                The trial of Rams defensive end Leonard Little on allegations of drunken
                driving and speeding in Ladue is set to begin Monday with jury selection that
                may take as long as the presentation of evidence and arguments.

                To the sports fan, Little is the stalwart who has anchored the left side of the
                Rams' defensive line and made the Pro Bowl.

                Beyond the sports pages, Little was the obscure rookie linebacker who in
                October 1998 drove his Lincoln Navigator through a red light downtown and
                collided with a car driven by Susan Gutweiler, 47, of Oakville, who was killed.

                In June 1999, Little admitted he had been drunk that night and pleaded guilty
                of involuntary manslaughter. He was sentenced to 90 days in jail, 1,000 hours
                of community service and four years of probation. That prompted a public debate
                over whether the penalty was enough - and whether Little got favored treatment.

                It is the Gutweiler death that makes this week's prosecution of Little in St.
                Louis County Circuit Court a major case.

                A Missouri law passed in 2001 says a person accused of drunken driving can be
                charged as a persistent offender if there is a prior manslaughter conviction.
                So instead of facing a municipal ordinance violation or a state misdemeanor
                charge, which are common in DUI cases, Little is charged with a felony that
                carries a maximum sentence of four years in prison.

                While the charge is a felony only because of the prior conviction, prosecutor
                Mark Bishop cannot mention the Gutweiler case in court. Judge Emmett M. O'Brien
                barred it in an order sought by defense attorneys Scott Rosenblum and John
                Rogers.

                "Defense motion to exclude references to prior bad acts, uncharged conduct and
                inflammatory hearsay . . . specifically any reference to defendant's arrest,
                plea and sentence in St. Louis . . . is sustained," O'Brien wrote in an order
                issued Wednesday.

                Legal experts say Bishop has one way around the order. He could use the
                conviction to attack Little's credibility, if Little testifies.

                Little, 30, of St. Charles, pleaded not guilty of the charges at his
                arraignment.

                Questioning of prospective jurors is expected to follow two main themes - how
                much each knows about the prior case and how much each knows about Little's
                football prowess - and whether either would stand in the way of a fair verdict.
                In high-profile cases, potential jurors often are questioned individually at
                the judge's bench, outside the earshot of the others. The process in this case
                is expected to be lengthy.

                The key prosecution witness in the trial...
                -03-26-2005, 06:10 AM
              • ZigZagRam
                Post-Dispatch Article - Little Acquitted
                by ZigZagRam
                Leonard Little is acquitted of DUI
                B Y WILLIAM C. LHOTKA
                Of the Post-Dispatch
                Friday, Apr. 01 2005

                A jury in St. Louis County Circuit Court acquitted Rams defensive end Leonard
                Little on Friday of drunk driving Highway 40 last year in Ladue.

                Little cried as the verdict was read in St. Louis County Circuit Court. He
                hugged his attorney, Scott Rosenblum, before collapsing to the floor.

                Rosenblum helped him up joking, "You're too big to pick up," as Little got back
                to his feet.

                Little was convicted on the lesser charge of speeding. Had he been convicted of
                the felony charge of driving while intoxicated, he would have faced up to four
                years in prison.

                Little's 2003 Mercedes was stopped at 3:44 a.m. on April 24 on Highway 40 near
                Lindbergh Boulevard. Officer Gregory Stork said he clocked Little at 78 mph.
                Little flunked three field sobriety tests, Stork claimed.

                Stork was the main prosecution witness against Little - and Rosenblum put the
                officer on trial during three hours of cross-examination on Thursday and in
                closing arguments on Friday.

                Prosecutor Mark Bishop told the jury of 11 women and one man that Little put on
                "the two beers defense. He drank so many beers that night, he doesn't remember
                how many."

                Whenever a police officer stops someone who is drunk and asks that person how
                much they had been drinking, they usually get the answer: "two beers," Bishop
                said.

                In an audiotape, Little first tells Stork he had two beers, and later he says
                he doesn't remember. Little refused a breathalyzer test at the Ladue Police
                Station that would have shown his blood alcohol content.

                In alleging Little was drunk and noting that a refusal to take the test means
                an automatic revocation, Bishop said: "He would rather give up his drivers
                license for a full calendar year than take the test."

                Rosenblum portrayed Stork as a "sheep in wolf's clothing," who appeared to be a
                nice guy but had an agenda of making as many DWI arrests as he could.

                In his testimony Thursday, Stork admitted that the sobriety tests he
                administered to Little varied from established police procedures. Using Stork's
                testimony in a license revocation hearing 19 days before Little's arrest,
                Rosenblum impeached Stork's trial testimony at least four times.

                On Friday, the only defense witness that Rosenblum called was Ladue Officer
                Keneth Andreski who was Stork's backup when Little was arrested and was
                standing five feet from the defendant when Little was given the sobriety tests.

                Stork had testified that Little was windmilling his...
                -04-01-2005, 06:30 PM
              • AvengerRam_old
                Latest on Little Trial (could be over soon)
                by AvengerRam_old
                Jury will hear closing arguments in Little case
                By William C. Lhotka
                Of the Post-Dispatch
                Friday, Apr. 01 2005

                A jury in St. Louis County Circuit Court will hear closing arguments this
                afternoon and then be asked to decide if Rams defensive end Leonard Little is
                guilty of drunk driving and speeding on Highway 40 in Ladue last year.

                The jury heard three prosecution and one defense witness this morning. Defense
                attorney Scott Roseblum called only Ladue Police Officer Kenneth Andreski to
                the stand.

                Andreski was the backup officer to Officer Gregory Stork who had stopped
                Little at 3:44 a.m. on April 24 near Highway 40 and Lindbergh Boulevard. Stork
                testified yesterday that Little was windmilling his arms and unable to stand on
                one foot during a sobriety test outside his 2003 Mercedes.

                Rosenblum asked Andreski, who said he was standing about five feet behind
                Little, if he saw the football player windmilling his arms or holding them
                outward like wings of an airplane. Andreski said he didn't recall seeing that
                happen.

                Under questioning by prosecutor Mark Bishop, Andreski said he saw Little place
                his foot down twice during a test requiring Little to stand on one leg, and he
                saw Little fail twice to walk straight ahead in a so-called ``walk and turn''
                test.

                ``Were you surprised how poor his balance is because he is such a good athlete?
                Were you surprised he couldn't stand on one foot and couldn't walk an imaginary
                line?'' Asked Bishop in a series of questions and Andreski replied
                affirmatively.

                Rosenblum pointed out -- and Andreski agreed -- that more than two foot touches
                and two steps off a line are needed for failure of those two sobriety tests.
                ``Based on your observations, you couldn't say he was intoxicated, could you?''
                the defense lawyer asked.

                ``No sir,'' the officer replied.

                And Rosenblum rested his case.



                Two comments from me:



                1. Based on what I have read about the testimony, I'd be shocked if Little is convicted. In fact, I think the jury will probably rule in his favor before day's end.

                2. Since I've openly criticized Hadley ane Bernie, let me give credit where it is due. William Lhotka, who has been reporting on the trial, has done a very good job of reporting the story.
                -04-01-2005, 11:31 AM
              • RamWraith
                Leonard LIttle calls on court to toss out DUI case
                by RamWraith
                By William C. Lhotka
                Of the Post-Dispatch
                Tuesday, Dec. 21 2004

                St. Louis Rams defensive stalwart Leonard Little is trying an end run around
                county courts to get his pending felony drunken driving charge dismissed.

                The Pro Bowl defensive lineman has petitioned the Missouri Supreme Court to
                throw out the felony indictment on the grounds that the law authorizing the
                charge is unconstitutional.

                The dismissal request before the high court is pending, Beth Riggert, the
                Supreme Court's communications director, confirmed Monday, and the judges could
                rule on the matter as early as this afternoon.

                Little's attorneys, James Bennett and K. Lee Marshall of the Bryan Cave law
                firm, are contending that a spate of U.S. Supreme Court rulings since 2000
                relating to a defendant's right to trial by jury under the Sixth Amendment
                apply in Little's case.

                Specifically, the lawyers say in court documents filed with the Missouri
                Supreme Court that by Missouri law, a judge, not a jury, has decided that
                Little is a persistent offender, and the statute that makes his pending case a
                felony therefore fails to pass muster.

                Bennett and Marshall's arguments were rejected July 30 by St. Louis County
                Circuit Judge Emmett M. O'Brien and Nov. 3 by the Missouri Court of Appeals.

                Mark Bishop, the assistant prosecutor trying Little, argued in his recent reply
                that the lower courts acted properly and the Supreme Court should reach the
                same conclusions.

                If the high court rules otherwise, the decision could be devastating statewide,
                Bishop said, and affect a dozen other statutes, including six sex abuse laws in
                which new charges become felonies because of prior misdemeanor convictions.

                Little pleaded guilty of involuntary manslaughter six years ago in a drunken
                driving accident downtown that took the life of Susan Gutweiler.

                At 3:44 a.m. on April 26, Ladue police Officer Greg Stork stopped Little on
                Interstate 64 (Highway 40) at Lindbergh Boulevard. Stork alleged that he
                clocked Little's 2003 Mercedes at 78 mph in a 55-mph zone.

                Stork said the defendant smelled of alcohol, failed sobriety tests, admitted he
                had been drinking and refused a Breathalyzer test.

                Because of his prior conviction for manslaughter, under a law passed by the
                Legislature in 2001, Little is a persistent offender. If he is convicted of the
                pending drunken driving charge, Little will face a maximum of four years in
                prison as a felon, instead of jail time.

                Under a series of rulings beginning in 2000 and culminating in Blakely v.
                Washington this year, the U.S. Supreme Court has moved steadily toward a theory ...
                -12-21-2004, 03:59 AM
              • HUbison
                You guys do know that Little was acquitted, right?
                by HUbison
                In 2000, Little pleads guilty to Involuntary Manslaughter. He is sentenced and serves 90 days in a work camp and 1000 hours community service.

                In 2005, Little is found guilty of speeding and innocent of drunk driving. He was sentenced to 2 years probation.

                I've often wondered why some people seem to believe that their opinion of the situation is more valuable than the judgement of 12 jurors. Do these people really want to send a person to jail after being found innocent? Has the concept of innocent until proven guilty not reached certain corners of our nation? Or is just simply rival football fans that like the idea of a rival team losing their best defensive player?

                Whatever the case is, it saddens me that so many think they are above the law. They talk about being disgusted by athletes and celebrities that act as is they are beyond the reach of the law, then wish to go beyond the law themselves by having these same athletes jailed on charges in which they were acquitted.

                I have to know....what legal basis do you have for saying Leonard Little should be in jail?
                -08-25-2005, 02:00 PM
              Working...
              X