Little found innocent

[The Vatican Hitsquad]

This makes me sick:

 

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...bn_little_trial

[gilthorp]

I agree. What a f'n joke.

[Trots]

[Ursa Majoris]

Yet another indictment of our money-based "justice" system.

[Swiss Cheezhead]

You guys are off base. Little is a piece of dog crap, but it's not an instance of "coddling athletes". Little wouldn't even get recognized in most U.S. cities.

 

It's purely ANOTHER instance of crappy police work.

[Ursa Majoris]

It's purely ANOTHER instance of crappy police work.

 

762734[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Combined with the ability to hire a high-priced lawyer.

[spain]

The guy was found innocent by a jury of his peers. That is our judicial system. What are your panties all bunched up about? Would you prefer we do away with trial by jury and just go to an Islamic Law sort of justice? Help me understand..

[gspot]

You guys are off base. Little is a piece of dog crap, but it's not an instance of "coddling athletes". Little wouldn't even get recognized in most U.S. cities.

 

It's purely ANOTHER instance of crappy police work.

 

762734[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

Wasn't he equitted by a jury? Don't understand why we are blaming the police , when 12 butt heads let him off.

 

The real shame is he should have been in jail for 30 years for woman he killed years earlier. (Her husband is a NFL photographer)

 

How you get liquored up, kill someone with your car, and get off with a few months is beyond me.

[The Vatican Hitsquad]

The Police did nothing wrong here, it's all a case of a high powered Lawyer only the rich could afford and an american public willing to forgive anybody with an ounce of celebrity.

 

This is a man who killed another person driving while drunk, and got a mere 3 months in jail, then got in a car and did it again. Oh wait, he was found not guilty... just like Jayson Williams, Robert Blake and OJ Simpson. That's great company he gets to keep, except he still has a job and will be featured in games and have his ass kissed on NFL Total Access.

[spain]

The Police did nothing wrong here, it's all a case of a high powered Lawyer only the rich could afford and an american public willing to forgive anybody with an ounce of celebrity.

 

This is a man who killed another person driving while drunk, and got a mere 3 months in jail, then got in a car and did it again. Oh wait, he was found not guilty... just like Jayson Williams, Robert Blake and OJ Simpson. That's great company he gets to keep, except he still has a job and will be featured in games and have his ass kissed on NFL Total Access.

 

762833[/snapback]

 

 

 

Or maybe he wasnt guilty. You ever think of that? Or maybe the prosecutor failed to meet his burden of proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I wasnt there for the trial and wasnt in the jury room so I dont know. What I do know is that anytime a defendant is acquitted everyone gets upset. Just because someone stands ACCUSED of a crime doesnt mean they are guilty of it. In this country we are presumed innocent. The state has the burden of proof to establish guilt. If they dont meet that burden the defendant walks. That is the way it works. If you want a 100% conviction rate I suggest you move to a communist country..

[Glabra]

Or maybe he wasnt guilty.  You ever think of that?  Or maybe the prosecutor failed to meet his burden of proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  I wasnt there for the trial and wasnt in the jury room so I dont know.  What I do know is that anytime a defendant is acquitted everyone gets upset.  Just because someone stands ACCUSED of a crime doesnt mean they are guilty of it.  In this country we are presumed innocent.  The state has the burden of proof to establish guilt.  If they dont meet that burden the defendant walks.  That is the way it works.  If you want a 100% conviction rate I suggest you move to a communist country..

 

762846[/snapback]

 

 

 

Couldn't have said it better myself. His prior conviction should've nothing to do with his guilt or innocence on the current charge.

[The Vatican Hitsquad]

Your right of course about the technical aspect of being found not guilty, but the courtroom of public opinion isn't bogged down with legal loopholes and idiot jurors. Accused celebrities like Blake, OJ, and Williams and I guess Little are found not guilty in the criminal courtroom, but are all basicly guilty and everybody knows it. Of course he was drunk driving, he has a history of it and the cops have much more to do than to frame him.

[godtomsatan]

Your right of course about the technical aspect of being found not guilty, but the courtroom of public opinion isn't bogged down with legal loopholes and idiot jurors. Accused celebrities like Blake, OJ, and Williams and I guess Little are found not guilty in the criminal courtroom, but are all basicly guilty and everybody knows it.

 

762861[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I really think you should take matters into your own hands, Charlie Bronson.

 

Of course he was drunk driving, he has a history of it and the cops have much more to do than to frame him.

 

 

I agree it's fishy to have a habitual DDer get nothing, but when a slam dunk case is lost in court, it's the prosecutors fault.

 

And besides, there are people out there who aren't Leonard Little, who are not celebrities, who have served jail time on DUIs, who have multiple violations and caused severe accidents, that still get f'd up and drive around.

 

As a matter of fact, chances are, that person is much much much more likely to kill you than a defensive lineman.

[Squeegiebo]

Your right of course about the technical aspect of being found not guilty, but the courtroom of public opinion isn't bogged down with legal loopholes and idiot jurors. Accused celebrities like Blake, OJ, and Williams and I guess Little are found not guilty in the criminal courtroom, but are all basicly guilty and everybody knows it. Of course he was drunk driving, he has a history of it and the cops have much more to do than to frame him.

 

762861[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I have seen few posts filled with more asstardery than this one.

 

What - you think we should have internet polls to decide criminal trials based on the "evidence" presented by the media? Because someone did something in the past makes him guilty of doing it this particular time?

 

I sincerely hope you never serve on a real jury.

[spain]

Your right of course about the technical aspect of being found not guilty, but the courtroom of public opinion isn't bogged down with legal loopholes and idiot jurors. Accused celebrities like Blake, OJ, and Williams and I guess Little are found not guilty in the criminal courtroom, but are all basicly guilty and everybody knows it. Of course he was drunk driving, he has a history of it and the cops have much more to do than to frame him.

 

762861[/snapback]

 

 

 

Should we eliminate the jury system and just start trying folks in the courtroom of public opinion? Can you see how that is not a good idea? What information do you have that suggests Little got off due to some legal loophole or idiot jurors? As a matter of fact, were you at the trial? You seem to know that the prosecutor proved Little guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, so I am curious as to how you came to acquire this knowledge.

 

I have driven drunk in the past, although I have never been arrested for it. Does that mean that everytime I get behind the wheel of a car, I am drunk? I am having a difficult time following your logic..

[broncosn05]

Stupid IMO

[Glabra]

I have driven drunk in the past, although I have never been arrested for it.  Does that mean that everytime I get behind the wheel of a car, I am drunk?  I am having a difficult time following your logic..

 

763083[/snapback]

 

 

 

Little and his lawyers did admit that he had a couple of beers, but I assume the prosecutors still had to prove impairment and failed to do so convincingly.

 

The 'rich people' and their lawyers aren't doing anything to bend the law. They're just utilizing an interpretation of it to their advantage. At worst, this case indicates laxity in the drunk-driving laws. What this isn't is an example of the failure of the judicial system.

 

[Edited for typo]

Edited April 3, 2005 by Glabra

[Tyler Rose]

I believe the 'courtroom of public opinion" has also already convicted Barry Bonds of steroid use so why hasn't he been suspended yet?

I always sort of looked at newspaper articles and ESPN as sources of information. I never realized they are actually 'evidence'.

[spain]

Little and his lawyers did admit that he had a couple of beers, but I assume the prosecutors still had to prove impairment and failed to do so convincingly.

 

[Edited for typo]

 

763193[/snapback]

 

 

 

There are certain elements for every crime. The prosecutor has the burden to prove each and every one of these elements. If he doesnt then the defendant must be acquitted. I dont know what the elements of DUI in Missouri are but they definitely spelled out in their penal code.

[The Vatican Hitsquad]

I have seen few posts filled with more asstardery than this one. 

 

What - you think we should have internet polls to decide criminal trials based on the "evidence" presented by the media?  Because someone did something in the past makes him guilty of doing it this particular time?

 

I sincerely hope you never serve on a real jury.

 

763075[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

And you are obviously on the same IQ level of one of the apologist who did serve on one of those juries who let Williams, Simpson and Blake off.

 

"Because someone did something in the past makes him guilty of doing it this particular time?"

 

Doing something in the past doesn't make you guilty, but sure as shuckse makes it probable that you did. That's how they caught John Couey in Florida, asshead. I'm sure that family in Florida who's daughter was taken from their home raped and killed by the conviceted sex abuser agrees with yoru thinking.

[Tyler Rose]

And you are obviously on the same IQ level of one of the apologist who did serve on one of those juries who let Williams, Simpson and Blake off.

 

"Because someone did something in the past makes him guilty of doing it this particular time?"

 

Doing something in the past doesn't make you guilty,  but sure as shuckse makes it probable that you did. That's how they caught  John Couey in Florida, asshead.  I'm sure that family in Florida who's daughter was taken from their home raped and killed by the conviceted sex abuser agrees with yoru thinking.

 

763516[/snapback]

 

 

 

Wow, I always figured if I lived long enough I'd come across the perfect person. Someone who not only has never made any mistakes in thier life but can also make snap evaluations of situations by just reading stories or watching a 5 minute news recap. The fact that Little would even put himself in the position to be suspected of drunken driving again after the first accident which resulted in a death shows a huge lack of good judgement but in no way assures guilt.

Otherwise, I can only assume that you have already managed to get a copy of the police report as well as the entire trial transcript. Hopefully a full report on the background and education level of every member of the actual jury as well as the original entire jury pool. It's a shame that the legal system in Missouri bothers to hire actual prosecuters who attended, graduated from law school and then passed the bar exam when they could've just hired you.

Oh yeah,the comparison to the child killer in Florida and suspicion of drunken driving are really close cases.

[The Vatican Hitsquad]

Wow, I always figured if I lived long enough I'd come across the perfect person. Someone who not only has never made any mistakes in thier life but can also make snap evaluations of situations by just reading stories or watching a 5 minute news recap. The fact that Little would even put himself in the position to be suspected of drunken driving again after the first accident which resulted in a death shows a huge lack of good judgement but in no way assures guilt.

Otherwise, I can only assume that you have already managed to get a copy of the police report as well as the entire trial transcript. Hopefully a full report on the background and education level of every member of the actual jury as well as the original entire jury pool. It's a shame that the legal system in Missouri bothers to hire actual prosecuters who attended, graduated from law school and then passed the bar exam when they could've just hired you.

Oh yeah,the comparison to the child killer in Florida and suspicion of drunken driving are really close cases.

 

763544[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

C'mon... I'm not "perfect"... near perfect, now that I will accept. Thanks for the compliment. Although I have made few mistakes in life, one mistake I have never made was killing a person while driving drunk. In fact, I never drove drunk in my life for fear of doing such a thing (as opposed to not driving drunk for fear of getting caught). Already know a few people in my family who have f@*ked other people up doing it.

 

You are right, Little put himself in position after killing a woman while driving drunk. That doesn't make him guilty, but he got pulled over for a reason. He failed 3 field sobriety tests and refused to take a breathelizer. So, then it became his word against the cops in the courtroom. The Jury sided with a star athlete instead of a law officer. I have read quite a bit about this trial, as opposed to the 5 minute news recap you refer to.

 

And my mention of the John Couey case was not a comparison to L. LIttle. It was a reply to Squeegibo and a reference to the police investigating him/any person because he has a past history of doing such a thing. Turned out they were right and found their man. That's what police do, it's how you come up with a list of suspects. It doesn't always mean your guilty, but sometimes your past actions build a character history that sure as hell can make it probable your are. Should we no longer ever take past actions into account when investigating and convicting criminals? We do it all the time, ever hear of "3-strikes" laws? So please, everybody step down off their Ron Kuby chairs and honestly, was OJ innocent? Jayson Williams? Both were found innocent, both examples of what I am talking about. I am well aware of how the legal system works, but when guys talk in a bar about current events, do you all honestly spout lines like "well, he's innocent until proven guilty" or do you speak your mind and say what you think? Do you not ever have a conversation about Michael Jackson being a twisted trainwreck? Or is that another case where everybody is waiting for a jury to decide before you ever say whether or not you think hes guilty?

 

If so, if you have NEVER stated how you felt about a person's guilt before or after the trial over a few beers, in a work commute covnersation, during lunch or on a meassage board then maybe you are the ones who are "near perfect".

 

Oh-- I am still "near perfect" of course, even if you have.

[phenom]

Well let's just jump right in to this topic.

 

There are some things to consider in this debate:

 

Isn't our whole legal system based on precedent? Unless someone is trying to break new ground we go with what has worked in the past.

 

 

Money is a factor in everything. It should not be a surprise or shock that anyone with wealth will invariably get a lighter sentence than those without. It's called MHIP, Money Has It's Priveleges.

 

 

I know in the military the guys who have gotten DUI's the advice they are given is to get a lawyer. I've heard the cost to retain their services is a minimum of $1,500 and can go up to $4,000 for these types of cases. Reason is even if you are guilty of the charge at least the lawyer can knock down the severity of the charges. So if you have the ability to even hire a better than avg. lawyer the odd's go up in your favor unless the judge wanted to make an example out of you. I would think that with the prevalence of DUI situations in this country that Little's probably wasn't the only DUI case presented that day. It would be interesting to see how previous cases had been handled. And then to see if this case affected

 

 

While Leonard Little is probably a millionaire in the NFL he isn't that well known in the public. If he walked past me I wouldn't know who he was. In fact there are probably more known NFL players that I wouldn't recognize in public. I don't think that Little's celebrity had that much effect on the trial. It would have to come down to the debating attorney's and if the defense lawyer is a little more persuasive. Well there it is...........

[Glabra]

He failed 3 field sobriety tests and refused to take a breathelizer. So, then it became his word against the cops in the courtroom. The Jury sided with a star athlete instead of a law officer. I have read quite a bit about this trial, as opposed to the 5 minute news recap you refer to.

 

763579[/snapback]

 

 

 

Sure you have..Did you read this?

 

Stork gave little a series of sobriety tests and prosecutor Mark Bishop played an audiotape of the incident for the jury. Defense attorney Scott Rosenbloom hammered Stork on cross-examination, accusing him of giving the test improperly. He also said Little was not drunk. Stork admitted making two errors in pervious testimony but defended his testimony procedure as correct.

 

Rosenblum aggressively questioned Officer Gregory Stork who stopped Little last April on Highway 40 near Lindbergh. Stork testified that Little flunked three field sobriety tests. But another Ladue officer on the scene said Little did not appear to be drunk. That conflicting testimony was enough for the jury to come back with a 'not guilty' verdict. According to one juror, "The prosecutor did not provide us with enough evidence to prove that Little had done all the things that he said he had done."

 

Do you even know what "failing" a sobriety test means?

 

If so, if you have NEVER stated how you felt about a person's guilt before or after the trial over a few beers, in a work commute covnersation, during lunch or on a meassage board then maybe you are the ones who are "near perfect

 

763579[/snapback]

 

 

 

Please tell me you realize the difference between stating your opinion in a conversation vs basing an indictment of a suspect based on your 'feeling' about him/her.

It doesn't always mean your guilty, but sometimes your past actions build a character history that sure as hell can make it probable your are. Should we no longer ever take past actions into account when investigating and convicting criminals?

 

763579[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

To an extent, yes. Past history can be used more as grounds to investigate someone, than to convict them. Even then, precedent and past history only go to a certain extent. You have to prove guilt in the current context. Again, '3 strikes and you're out' applies to after you're convicted, as the penalties get harsher. But the conviction itself has to stand on its own merits.

The way you initially stated it, you felt it was a friggin' slam-dunk because he's been convicted in the past, and was caught driving drunk.

 

[edited for typo]

Edited April 3, 2005 by Glabra

[Tyler Rose]

OK, "Upon further review"(after all this is still a football forum) I revise my 'perfect' statement to just very narrow minded. Because you think OJ,Blake amd Williams are guilty that makes it fact? I think my lottery numbers are pretty darn good each week but somehow the corrupt lottery system continues to screw me.

Everybody has opinions on things but to call the people who were actually on these juries idiots is a blanket statement made by someone who just doesn't have access to everything that they have seen or heard. In an article in the St Louis post dispatch the arresting officer admits the field tests he gave Little varied from the established police procedure. The officer who was called in to back up the 1st officer was called in as a 'defense' witness because he did not see the same 'drunk actions' on Littles part that the arresting officer testified to. The backup officer tesified that he was 5 feet from Little the whole time the tests were administered so he had a clear view.From just that one article I see there may be some 'reasonable doubt'.

I whole heartedly agree that folks with more money have a better chance of getting off because they can afford the high priced defense attorneys. Alot of these defense attorneys start off in the DAs office and have a pretty good knowledge of how the prosecution will approach the case to begin with. Money maybe unable to buy you happiness but it can for sure buy you a lawyer who left the DAs office for the lure of more cash. Finally,as to it being because Little is a well known celebrity in St Louis then I can only believe that had it been Martz on trial he'd have gotten the chair!!