Another Reason Why Our Legal System Sucks

[CCI]

13 1/2

12 jurrors
1 judge and a half a chance
The legal system sucks money talks and when an individual recieves a Public Offender (oh Defender) they got no chance to get what a paid lawyer does. I know that this don't mean alot to the thread, but I'm just venting

 

[methomps]

FWIW, here's a little more on the story:

LOOMING ACQUITTAL FOR LITTLE WAS OBVIOUS

​

​

On Friday, we reported that the Rams were confident defensive end Leonard Little would be acquitted on DUI charges that could have put him away for four years, based on his history of making like Kyle Busch after he'd made like Foster Brooks.
​

​

And on Friday morning, we heard from our good friend Howard Balzer (a prominent St. Louis sports journalist, formerly of USA Today SportsWeekly) regarding the testimony he witnessed in the courtroom on Thursday. Balzer 'splained to us that, in his view, a conviction was very unlikely, given "stunn[ing]" inconsistencies between the established procedures for conducting field sobriety tests and the manner in which arresting officer Gregory Stork administered them.
​

​

As Balzer wrote, "Frankly, from what I heard Thursday, it's difficult for me to imagine 12 jurors unanimously finding Little guilty."
​

​

On Friday, Balzer's prediction came to fruition. Here are some excerpts of the info that Balzer shared with us following the developments on the day that culminated in Little's aquittal:
​

​

"[A] backup officer at the scene said he didn't observe the things Officer Stork did" regarding Little's alleged intoxication. "Also of interest, it was brought out that the backup officer, Kenneth Andreski, carries a [DUI procedures] manual with him at all times, while Stork doesn't even own one," Balzer said.
​

​

"The prosecutor was reaching so desperately that in his closing arguments he said Little was drunk because it was 3:44 a.m. and the only people out at that time of night were drunks, people who work the night shift, and criminals. Amazing. While acknowledging that Stork didn't administer the tests properly, he then said, 'Who cares? It doesn't have anything to do with this' and added that the defense was 'nitpicking.'"
​

​

Meanwhile, Little's lawyer, Scott Rosenblum, singlehandedly secured the acquittal, via compelling cross-examination and a photographic recollection as to the key facts and nuggets of information.
​

​

Balzer listed for us some of the gems from Rosenblum's closing argument to the jury:
​

​

1. Referring to the flaws in the sobriety testing procedure that were caught on camera, Rosenblum said that "Stork got caught by the very tape he usually used to protect himself. He got punked."

2. "He gave instructions on the tests that were designed to make [Little] fail."

3. "Do you find it alarming that I knew the [DUI procedures] manual better than Gregory Stork?"

4. "You must consider the audacity, the arrogance of an individual that has not trained for a minute since 1997. He didn't even own a manual. His whole arrest process is a means to an end."

5. Referring to more than 300 DUI arrests made by Storck, Rosenblum said, "He has always gone unchallenged. Hopefully, that will change. What he did that night was the only crime committed."
​

​

Of course, it appears that the prosecution's fate was sealed even before Rosenblum's closing. In the type of "Perry Mason" moment of which every lawyer dreams, Storck's trial copy of the sobriety testing procedures was missing a page. And the missing page, which Rosenblum had enlarged onto a poster board, explained that any inaccuracy in the administration of the test or in the instruction of the subject "compromises the validity and accuracy of the test."
​

​

So, as many of you might be aksing yourselves, why did this mess even go to trial, especially when the case had more reasonable doubt than Michael Jackson's gynecologist? Scroll up to the Chiefs-Dolphins story for some clues in this regard as to the mindset that surely prevented the prosecutor from letting go of this one after he'd gotten it in his head that he was going to put away Leonard Little, who hardly is a sympathetic figure based on the 1999 death of Susan Gutweiler, which occurred in an accident involving an admittedly drunken Little.
​

​

For the prosecutor, there was no way out of the box without looking like a nincompoop -- and without exposing Officer Storck to a civil charge of malicious prosecution. Then again, we don't rule out the fact that Little and his lawyers will seek justice against Storck for the unnecessary worry and expense that Little incurred based on a deeply flawed arrest procedure, which very well might have been motivated by malice.
​

Prosecutors say state law hampered ability to prosecute St. Louis Rams' defensive end

[size=-1][/size]

[size=-1]Associated Press[/size]

CLAYTON, Mo. - Prosecutors said their inability to present the results of portable breath tests hampered the prosecution of St. Louis Rams' player Leonard Little.

The Pro Bowl defensive end, who previously pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter in a 1998 drunken-driving crash, was found innocent of drunken driving Friday by a St. Louis County jury.

A preliminary breath test indicated Little's blood-alcohol content was 0.13 percent, well above the legal limit of 0.08 percent, when he was stopped for speeding April 24 on Interstate 64 in Ladue, a St. Louis suburb.

But state law makes results from portable breath tests inadmissible, and prosecutors said Little refused to take a follow-up test.

Jurors also weren't told of the alcohol-related manslaughter charge. Little served three months in jail and completed 1,000 hours of community service and four years of probation for the crash in downtown St. Louis that killed Susan Gutweiler of St. Louis County. He was also suspended without pay for the first half of the 1999 season.

Because of the previous conviction, Little could have faced up to four years in prison along with another suspension from the NFL if convicted in the most recent case.

"Why they gave him a break is something I cannot answer," said St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Robert McCulloch. "I can't help think that if the jury had all the information, that he was approaching twice the legal limit, there would have been a different outcome."

Scott Rosenblum, Little's defense attorney, said during the trial that Little had had only two beers and was not intoxicated when stopped by police.

"It was an uphill battle," Rosenblum said. "We came in with a lot of preconceived notions against us."

During the trial, Ladue Officer Gregory Stork testified that Little failed three field sobriety tests. Results from portable breath tests aren't admissible because the equipment involved is not considered as reliable as the fixed tests, where equipment is regularly maintained and calibrated by technicians.

Little refused to submit to a breath analysis test at the Ladue police station.

Rosenblum argued at trial that the officer had a goal to get a high number of driving-while-intoxicated arrests on his record. Stork also acknowledged in court that the sobriety tests he administered to Little varied from established police procedures

"I think the state's primary witness was determined not to be credible by the jury," Rosenblum said. "He demonstrated that he was not properly administering field sobriety tests."

McCulloch said drunken-driving cases are generally difficult to try because many potential jurors can relate to the circumstances of the defendant. He also criticized members of the Rams organization for visiting the trial and causing a stir in the courthouse.

But Rams coach Mike Martz, who attended the proceedings as did general manager Charley Armey and several players and assistant coaches, disputed McCulloch's assertion that they were there to influence the jury with their celebrity.

"Leonard is one of the most popular and well-liked players on our team," Martz said. "I'm very close to Leonard as are a number of people in our organization and on our team. We believed in his innocence from the very beginning and it was important to be there in support."

 

[FKAGobucks877]

Gee, yeah, it's obviously the lawyers fault. Maybe if we didn't have so many cops with a God complex, or laws with so few teeth that a convicted killer can still drive, things would be a little better. But no, let's blame the lawyers...

 

[BUCKWEISER]

FKA, I was only addressing the problems that I think we have with our legal system at that time. I was in no way absolving the medical community of any blame for the complete wreck that we call health care. In my experience any profession can be distorted and used to accomplish things it was not intended for . Hence the phrase "loopholes in the system". Sometimes they are discovered and fixed, but other times they are created and used by the powers that be, and only corrected by massive public outcry. Usually (by republicans!) , after another one has been opened and the current loophole has lost its profitability and the public eye (democrats!) has been cast upon it. But that has more to do with law making and government in general. After reading this I've come to the conclusion that I don't fucking trust anyone, thanks.

 

[FKAGobucks877]

After reading this I've come to the conclusion that I don't fucking trust anyone, thanks.

Yeah, I think I'm with you 100% there...and don't get me wrong, I'm not calling you out or anything...I simply am amused at the constant lawyer-bashing that goes on. I mean, how many other occupations are there where the better you are at your job, the more people hate you?

 

[Alan]

In central ohio tonite.....a story about a five year old girl who was raped and murdered.....the man with her at the time was given a genital swab to test for dna of the little girl....the test showed up positive...the guy admitted it to police and to other inmates....

but...FKA...a scumbag attorney worships money enough that he has found a loophole and is going to get the guy off scot free....

you and i will never see eye to eye on this issue....i would live in a box b4 i would ever be this type of attorney......how do you sleep at night knowing you have perpetuated wrong b/c you are to believe that it is ok b/c the system allows for it...

attorneys like this are just as bad as the rest of society that blames others for their actions....no....they are worse.....

 

[methomps]

In central ohio tonite.....a story about a five year old girl who was raped and murdered.....the man with her at the time was given a genital swab to test for dna of the little girl....the test showed up positive...the guy admitted it to police and to other inmates....

but...FKA...a scumbag attorney worships money enough that he has found a loophole and is going to get the guy off scot free....

you and i will never see eye to eye on this issue....i would live in a box b4 i would ever be this type of attorney......how do you sleep at night knowing you have perpetuated wrong b/c you are to believe that it is ok b/c the system allows for it...

attorneys like this are just as bad as the rest of society that blames others for their actions....no....they are worse.....

What was the loophole? Is there an article on the story?

 

[Alan]

the loophole is that they swabbed the guy before the girl was officially declared missing.....therefore, probable cause is in question.....

 

[FKAGobucks877]

Alan, we can see eye-to-eye on that. What I don't get is the general stereotype of "all attorneys are scum-sucking bottom dwellers". You can't stereotype an entire profession based on the actions of a few. In the instance you are talking about, I personally couldn't pull that crap either. Nor do I condone it. But you have those types of people in every profession. There are dirty cops, raping dentists, and pedophile priests. If you change the system, you'll have less of this crap. To me, while I despise the attorney in this particular case, I recognize that at least he isn't breaking the law, unlike the pedophiles and rapists. So who is a worse human being? And why are attorneys universally despised, especially when the vast majority helps to change the system? For every personal injury attorney, there is a defense attorney that fights the bullshit, and also fights for tort reform to stop the endless petty lawsuits. I just find it laughable that the title of this thread was originally taking a shot at the attorney, instead of the drunk killer.

 

[Alan]

you are correct FKA and we are in agreement on your post.....i didn't mean it to sound like all attorneys are low-life....i have several long-time friends that are attorneys and they are great.....i guess like in any profession there are a few who reflect poorly on the group as a whole....

there are bad cops, bad teachers, bad salespeople, bad doctorbs, bad politicians, bad ceo's...etc

 

[Thump]

there are bad cops, bad teachers, bad salespeople, bad doctorbs, bad politicians, bad ceo's...etc

I love your subtleness DiHard!

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

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.

Uh, I thought that refusal to comply for any of the testing procedures resulted in an automatic arrest and finding...it does here in Hawaii.

I agree big time with FKA and BUTTWIPER, er, BUCKWEISER (hey, still have to give him shit). The system is getting set up to where there are too many loopholes disguised as "protection of rights". I think if you drive on a public roadway, you come under public security (i.e. police) scrutiny and as such you should be able to be pulled over for any reason at any time an officer feels you are a potential danger. You should have no right to refuse any test...if you don't like it, then don't fucking get behind the wheel.

 

[BB73]

Uh, I thought that refusal to comply for any of the testing procedures resulted in an automatic arrest and finding...it does here in Hawaii.

Any state that doesn't equate a refusal to take a breathalizer test as an admission of guilt is just allowing a bunch of drunken assholes to keep their licenses and endanger the public safety.

 

[tibor75]

So in Missouri only an idiot would agree to take a BAL test?

 

[BB73]

Idiots and smart folks that are sure they're below the legal limit.