Articles Posted in DUI

John Cullerton is the Majority Leader of the Illinois State Senate. Because of how the Illinois General Assembly operates, this position provides Senator Cullerton with a great deal of authority over Illinois laws, including DUI laws.

Cullerton’s son, Garritt, was arrested for an Illinois DUI last year. The circumstances of Cullerton’s DUI arrest have been previously reported. Recently, Cullerton pled guilty to the DUI. He was sentenced to two years of non reporting probation (knows as conditional discharge), fined $1,250, required to obtain a drug and alcohol evaluation and perform 240 hours of community service, in place of 10 days of jail time.

The above appears to be a standard disposition for someone who has had more than one DUI arrest. The more interesting part of the case involves Cullerton’s overall driving record.

Cullerton has two previous DUI arrests. One of them was dismissed. In the other case, he was granted court supervision.

In a plea of court supervision, you plead guilty to the offense. However, the judge withholds entry of a conviction and later dismisses the case. So while you plead guilty, because you are not convicted, you avoid a driver’s license revocation.

Continue reading →

Former Yankee catcher Jim Leyritz was charged with reckless homicide as a result of a traffic crash in Florida. Both he and the driver of the vehicle with which he collided had blood alcohol levels about the legal limit of .08.

In order to convict Leyritz of reckless homicide, a felony, the prosecutor was required to prove that his intoxication caused the crash. The evidence cast doubt on whether Leyritz or the other driver ran the red light.

Because the jury was unable to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that Leyritz ran the red light, he was found not guilty of the reckless homicide charge. Leyritz was found guilty of DUI and sentenced to probation with no jail time.

A DUI charge is criminal in nature. As such, the prosecutor (in Illinois he is referred to as the state’s attorney, not to be confused with the attorney general) must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person charged committed each part of the offense. In Illinois, the offense consists of 2 parts:

1. That the accused was in actual physical control of a vehicle; and
2. That at the time the accused was in actual physical control of a vehicle, the accused was under the influence of any alcohol or drug or combination of drugs to a degree which rendered the accused incapable of safely driving.

In the Leyritz case, there was no doubt he was in actual physical control of a motor vehicle. The proposition in question was whether he was “under the influence” of alcohol to such an extent that he was incapable of driving safely.

Continue reading →

The jury has spoken. Former Yankees catcher Jim Leyritz has been found not guilty of DUI manslaughter. Leyritz was, however, found guilty of the DUI charge.

Leyritz had been charged with reckless homicide and DUI after being involved in an intersection crash in Florida. From the outset, the case did not appear to be going in the prosecutor’s favor. The defense was able to present the jury with testimony that the deceased driver was intoxicated even though the judge had ruled the jury should not hear such evidence.

As the trial progressed, things got worse for the state’s case. The state presented two witnesses in an effort to prove that Leyritz ran a red light and thereby caused the other driver’s death. However, one witness admitted that he did not see the light but only looked at it when tires screeched. The other witness, Leyritz’s passenger, said the light was yellow. If the light was red, then Leyritz caused the accident and ensuing death; if it was yellow, it is possible the other driver ran the red light.

Continue reading →

The jury is deliberating the DUI death case brought against former Yankee catcher Jim Leyritz. Leyritz is accused of driving drunk, thereby causing an intersection collision that led to the death of the driver of the vehicle with which he collided.

The prosecution claims that Leyritz ran a red light and that his blood alcohol content at the time of the accident was .18, well above the Florida legal limit of .08, which is the same legal limit for an Illinois DUI. At the time Leyritz was tested, 3 hours after the crash, his blood alcohol content was .14.

The state (prosecutor) hired a toxicology expert who testified about the process of “reverse extrapolation”. Reverse extrapolation simply means that the expert worked the numbers backwards. He estimated Leyritz’s blood alcohol content when he was driving was .18.

On the other hand, Leyritz offered a spirited defense of the charges. First, no witness was able to state with certainty that Leyritz’s light was red. At most, they testified it was yellow when he entered the intersection. One witness was a passenger in Leyritz’s vehicle. The other was a pedestrian.

Furthermore, Leyritz had his own expert. This expert also relied upon reverse extrapolation and the concept of the alcohol absorption curve. The idea is that alcohol does not enter the bloodstream (and therefore effect the blood alcohol content) immediately upon drinking. It takes some time.

Continue reading →

What is the process that leads to being arrested for DUI in Springfield Illinois? What happens after you are arrested?

There are a number of reasons that you may initially encounter law enforcement in connection with the operation of a motor vehicle. Common situations include speeding, improper lane usage (weaving or crossing the centerline or fog line), other erratic driving, equipment violations (light burned out), being involved in an accident- your fault or not, a roadside safety check, a report from someone claiming to have observed you leaving a bar intoxicated, a citizen’s complaint of your supposed erratic driving, or the police randomly run your license plates and you come back suspended or revoked.

Also, the police may come upon you while you are asleep in your car or dozed off behind the wheel in traffic. There may be other reasons but these are the most common.

Now that the police have stopped you, they will be looking for reasons to believe you may be under the influence of alcohol. It all starts, even before you get out of the car, with your breath (odor of alcohol), speech (slurred) and eyes (bloodshot, watery, glassy). The next decision point will probably be whether you have difficulty producing your driver’s license, insurance card and vehicle registration.

At some point during all of this, the officer is going to ask you whether you have been drinking, or how much have you had to drink. If you answer “no” or “none” he will challenge you by claiming he smells it on your breath.

Continue reading →

Former New York Yankees catcher and 1996 World Series hero Jim Leyritz is on trial for DUI manslaughter. Leyritz is accused of operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol, causing the death of Freida Veitch, who was driving the vehicle with which Leyritz collided in Florida. In Illinois, this offense is known as reckless homicide.
The trial has just begun but there have already been a couple of interesting turns. Evidence shows that Veitch had a blood alcohol content of .18, well above the legal limt of .08. Leyritz’s blood alcohol level 3 hours after the crash was .14. An expert for the state, relying upon the alcohol absorption curve, concluded that Leyritz’s alcohol content at the time he was driving would have been .18.

Before the trial started, the prosecutor had obtained a ruling from the judge that the jury would not be allowed to hear evidence of Veitch’s alleged intoxication. These pretrial motions are known as motions in limine.

In a jury trial, one of the judge’s most important functions is to make rulings on whether the jury will be allowed to hear certain testimony. In some instances, a question is asked and the opposing attorney shouts “objection!” and the judge decides whether or not the witness will be allowed to answer the question. If he says “overruled”, the witness will be allowed to answer. If he says “sustained”, the witness will not be allowed to answer.

Every DUI lawyer knows, however, that there are certain questions that are so damaging that if the jury even hears the question, a sustained objection will not undo the damage that asking the question has created. This is the concept of not being able to “put toothpaste back in the tube” or “un-ring the bell”.

Continue reading →