Feb
18

Leyritz, jailed Friday, now released

By

Or: As the Jim Leyritz Saga Turns. Last Friday, as you might remember, former Yankee Jim Leyritz was jailed for defying his pretrial sobriety mandate. The case’s prosecutors claim that The King attempted to drive his car with alcohol in his system “on at least four occasions,” so Circuit Judge Marc Gold signed a warrant for his arrest. Leyritz’s attorney said he’d dispute the claim, and it appears that he has won.

I’ll let Leyritz’s attorney explain why his client was released:

“When Judge Gold issued that order, he had no jurisdiction to issue it,” said Leyritz’s attorney David Bogenschutz.

So he’s out on a technicality, I guess. Here’s a sentence from the CBS 4 report that has me baffled: “Bogenschutz doesn’t dispute the allegations but claims his client ‘misunderstood’ his restrictions.” So his attorney doesn’t dispute that he attempted to drive while drunk, the very action that got him in this mess in the first place. So does that mean that Leyritz “misunderstood” that he can’t drive his car while he’s drunk? That’s what it sounds like to me.

If you want to watch the CBS news report, you can watch it here.

Categories : Not Baseball
  • Chris

    My guess would be that the “misunderstanding” stems from the amount of alcohol allowed in his system. For example, if he has one beer then gets in his car, he wouldn’t be over the legal limit, but it might violate this ruling.

    Of course, if you’re facing charges related to drunk driving, perhaps you should lay off the booze all together for a while.

  • andrew

    Mike Schmidt is a very wise man.

    http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/.....id=3915892

    • Jack

      But was he wise enough to post on-topic?

      • Mike Pop

        Uh-oh.

      • A.D.

        I mean come on there have been no A-Rod, Steroids, or Open threads in weeks to post this type of info

        • andrew

          Thanks for having my back hahah, I knew if I emailed this to Ben or somebody that they wouldn’t post on it because of their boycott of all things steroid related (which, trust me, I am in favor of for the most part). But since this was somebody who finally backed ARod up I thought it was relevant for people to see.

  • http://actyankee.blogspot.com Matt

    Fuck you, Jim Leyritz. There is no excuse for drunk driving.

    • Jay CT

      Well said. Basically restates my post from last week.

  • Pingback: Put him back in… « iYankees

  • Yankee1010

    But, he also took steroids. And like, that’s like 100 times worse than drunk driving. That’s what the mediots should focus on.

    • UWS

      I know you’re just trying to make a joke, but for the love of God, let’s please keep the S word out of it…

    • jsbrendog

      did he take “the s word” i know he admitted to greenies and amphetamines but not steroids. theres a woooooooooooorld of difference. steroids make you “better”

      amphetamins and greenies let you be a functional human being after an all night booze coke and hooker binge

      • whozat

        “amphetamins and greenies let you be a functional human being after an all night booze coke and hooker binge”

        They also help you be a functional baseball player after 100 games in 94 days.

        • jsbrendog

          yeah but with leyritz im gonna go with coke/hookers/booze

      • Yankee1010

        Well, it’s at least debatable if steroids make you better. I’m not sure if you’re being serious, but differentiating between greenies, amphetamines and steroids is splitting hairs. By no means is there a “woooooooooorld of difference.”

        • jsbrendog

          dude amphetamines are like drinking a red bull x5, steroids are putting a needle in your bum so you can grow big muscles.

          • jsbrendog

            aderol is like the king of the amphetamines among college athletes and in no way is it like taking steroids

            • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Ridiculous Upside

              Nobody will deny that steroids has a greater physical appearance creating difference than amphetamines.

              What is less certain is that steroids is more effective at helping you get better at baseball than amphetamines are. You can say that Barry Bonds never hits 73 homers without steroids, that he only would have hit 53. But perhaps without greenies, George Brett doesn’t hit .390 in 1980, he only hits .320.

              Amphetamines reduces pain, reduces muscular fatigue increases adrenaline, sharpens focus and quickens mental processing. Steroids can give you muscle mass to help you hit a pitched ball harder. Greenies can help you see a pitched ball better, allowing you to pick up the difference between a fastball and a slider easier and hence, not only helps you hit a ball harder (albeit not as effectively as steroids) but also helps you hit the ball better and more frequently.

              You’re drastically understating the value of greenies. Just like steroids, they didn’t help you, MLB players wouldn’t have been taking them for the past 7 decades.

              • jsbrendog

                see when you put it that way….ok. uncle.

  • http://www.mlbnotebook.com Zach Sanders

    Awesome. More criminals roaming the streets!

  • Axl

    What happened to Jeter addressing the media today? Yankees.com even took it off of their website. Did he call it off?? I haven’t heard anything…

    • steve (different one)

      he spoke. nothing earth shattering. said he is disappointed but believes Alex is sorry. he supports him. feels angry that everyone from that era is tainted, even if they are clean. etc.

      • jsbrendog

        insert stock corporate message here.

        did you really expect something earth shattering from el capitan?

        • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Ridiculous Upside

          Both teams played hard, my man.

          • jsbrendog

            it was a good game. i saw it with my own eyes.

  • http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#/group.php?gid=43434432275 Jim

    Leyritz obviously has a horrible problem. He can never make up for what he did but hopefully he turns the corner with his problem.

    • jsbrendog

      agreed, yes, but was not the woman who died also under the influence and with a BAC either equal to or higher than his?

      • Sweet Dick Willie

        Yes, she was. So what the fuck does that have to with anything? He was driving drunk, ran a red light and killed a person as a result. The fact that she was also drunk in no way changes or lessens what he did.

        • jsbrendog

          ok. im going to assume here for a second that you can read and that you just skimmed over the part where i said agreed yes to the above comments.

          go back and try to cipher through that. thanks guy,.

          • Jay CT

            You still are not answering what is of vital importance. Does she need to not drink in order to avoid him? If she had killed him I would be saying duck her. But she didn’t. She is dead. I think you are still young enough to not know the true ramifications of drunk driving, which is not an insult, but something you cannot fully comprehend. I deal with it daily

        • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Ridiculous Upside

          The fact that she was also drunk in no way changes or lessens what he did.

          Actually, it does.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C.....negligence

          • ceciguante

            nice link. but really, so far as i can tell, the truth hasn’t come out about this case. leyritz’s counsel alleged that leyritz was seated (albeit with some high BAC) at a red light, stopped, when this other drunk driver barreled into him. assuming for a moment that is all true, doesn’t that make this woman’s death all her fault?

            as much as everyone likes to be their own personal media judge/jury/executioner these days, there’s a reason we have trials for this sort of thing. it’s to figure out what the hell really happened, and apply the law properly.

          • Jay CT

            Yeah, but it doesn’t exhonerate the fact that he KILLED someone because he was drunk driving, AGAIN. Until you see the child who asks you, “When can I see my mommy?” when the kids mom is dead because she was drunk driving, or she got hit from a drunk driver, or she was in the car with a drunk driver, you really dont need to be “snarky” with a devils advocate approach. I get that that is your thing, scanning the board to find someone making a statement that you can disprove, and you are damn good at it, but in this case I think you are wrong, and possibly out of your league (although I don’t know what you do. I know you sent out a bio at the start of fantasy football season, but I don’t remember it.) I am not making a blanket statement that you don’t know what you are talking about either, I am just saying that unless you are in the buisness of dealing with this type of stuff (I work with DCF), its difficult to see what a terrible, horrible, fucked up thing it is. And this attitude goes for superstar athlete to next door neighbor. Drunk driving laws are way behind the times, as are sexual assult laws, but thats a whole different avenue.

            • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Ridiculous Upside

              I never said it exonerated him. Her being drunk doesn’t make him in the right. It may make him less in the wrong, though… that’s not the same thing.

              It doesn’t absolve him of his wrong actions, but it may mitigate his contribution to her death.

              • Jay CT

                Agreed. I was not looking at it from a legal aspect, but from the “rest of the life” aspect. Overall, the system is messed up. There is no excuse for her to be drunk driving either, it is just as wrong. It just pisses me off on many levels because people don’t realize the long term ramifications. When drunk driving happens, and a person has children, immeditely the household gets investigated. That is coming out of your pocket, as the taxpayer. If I remove the child, that comes out of your pocket. If I find a foster parent, but the parent is out of town, schooling comes from your pocket. If said child need therapy, your pocket. Why shouldn’t it come out of Leyritz’s pocket? Or Joba for that matter if he contines his actions. I realize I am speaking of a “worse case scenario,” but it happens more then you would imagine.

              • Sweet Dick Willie

                Her being drunk doesn’t make him in the right. It may make him less in the wrong, though

                I disagree. From a legal standpoint, her being drunk could make him less liable (according to your link), but from a moral standpoint, it cannot make him less wrong.

  • Tom Zig

    I can’t say I feel bad for him, but I do wish him the best in recovering from alcoholism.

  • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Ridiculous Upside

    So he’s out on a technicality, I guess.

    GOD, I hate that phrase. Everything in the law is a technicality. When O.J. was acquitted for murder, he got off on a technicality. When he was found guilty of armed robbery, he was convicted on a technicality.

    Technically, the judge doesn’t have the right to issue an order for his arrest because there’s NO LEGAL BASIS for that judge to issue that order, meaning the judge was VIOLATING THE LAW in ordering Leyritz’s arrest. Hence, Leyritz got out on a “technicality” because he never should have been in in the first place, his arrest was illegal.

    The system is designed to make it hard to put people in prison for a good reason: We want it hard for the government to put people in prison. The alternative is that it’s super-easy for the government to put people in prison, and we have Stalinist Soviet Russia.

    Saying that someone “got off on a technicality” needlessly slanders/libels the correct workings of the justice system.

    /rant

    • jsbrendog

      in other news president bush killed 5 million o fhis own people in his 5 year plan thanks to the abolishment of technicalities.

      • Lanny

        I wonder how many your boy O will kill with his appeasement plans.

        • http://mantisfists.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/julius-carry-aka-shonuff.jpg The Honorable Congressman Mondesi

          OMG. Seriously. Both of you. Let’s not have political discussions here. Please go to an appropriate forum.

          • jsbrendog

            IT WAS A JOKE1!!!!! (not directed at you)

            do i really have to put up a disclaimer with a joke notice??

            it was done with bush because he was the last person to hold office for more than a month!!

            chill out republicans.

            i want NOTHING to do with a political discussion. due to people’s inability to digest humor next time it will be president rosie o’donnel.

            fuck this, that baby is right, this thread sucks, im going home now.

            ps, anyone with hsitorical knowledge knows that stalin instituted multiple 5 year plans that killed millions of hsi own people. therefore, knowing that, a joke with an american leader doing the same things as a result of the abolishment of “technicalities ” as referenced above is clearly comical./ whatever

            • http://mantisfists.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/julius-carry-aka-shonuff.jpg The Honorable Congressman Mondesi

              I know it was a joke, sorry. I decided to post my comment after Lanny so eloquently responded to your comment. It’s just that… You know if you make a joke like it’s going to turn into a shit-show around here. Just resist the urge!

        • jsbrendog

          wwhoa whoa. i never said “O” was my boy. in fact i dont have a boy and hate politicians as a whole and am not ZOMG A BLACK PRESIDENT TEH US IS SAVEEED!!

          thanks though.

    • http://mantisfists.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/julius-carry-aka-shonuff.jpg The Honorable Congressman Mondesi

      Well… Surely there’s a difference between a decision/disposition of a matter that hinges on a substantive matter and one that hinges on a procedural matter, no? I totally agree that “technicalities” exist for a very good reason and people are misguided when they poo-poo incidents that hinge on “technicalities,” but there IS a difference there. On the other hand… Whatevs.

  • usty

    Ah…good ol’ Leonard Little Leyritz.

  • Ben B.

    Well, nobody seems to have addressed the substance of Ben’s post.

    Ben, I believe his restrictions prohibit him from having ANY alcohol in his system while driving, and his vehicle is outfitted with a device that measures whether he has any alcohol in system. He wasn’t re-arrested for driving drunk four times. He was re-arrested for violating the part of his bail arrangement.

    No one has alleged he has been trying to drive while drunk since his release.

    Also, it makes a huge difference that the victim was intoxicated, too, while driving. I believe Leyritz’s defense is going to be that SHE ran the red light, not him, and I think it’s going to be tough to prove he’s incorrect.

    • http://mantisfists.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/julius-carry-aka-shonuff.jpg The Honorable Congressman Mondesi

      “Well, nobody seems to have addressed the substance of Ben’s post.”

      Well thank god Ben B. is here to provide the only relevant comment in the thread! Whatever would anyone do without Ben B.?

      • Ben B.

        Off-topic posting is against RAB’s Commenting Guidelines, Monde, and the guys usually do try to steer off-topic commentary back in line.

        • http://mantisfists.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/julius-carry-aka-shonuff.jpg The Honorable Congressman Mondesi

          I agree that comments should be kept on-topic and acknowledge that off-topic posting is against the guidelines. The problem with your comment is that most of the comments in this thread are, in fact, on-topic.

          And just for good measure, you wrote: “Also, it makes a huge difference that the victim was intoxicated, too, while driving. I believe Leyritz’s defense is going to be that SHE ran the red light, not him, and I think it’s going to be tough to prove he’s incorrect.”

          The question of whether the deceased driver was also intoxicated is relevant, I believe, because the deceased driver’s level of intoxication may mitigate Leyritz’s level of culpability, not because there is a question of “who hit who.” I may be wrong, but I’d be shocked if very basic crime-scene investigation wouldn’t provide a pretty clear answer to the question of “who hit who.”

    • http://www.riveraveblues.com Joseph P.

      Is it that hard to read the by-line on the post?

      • http://mantisfists.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/julius-carry-aka-shonuff.jpg The Honorable Congressman Mondesi

        I smell a new RAB Commenting Guideline. Hopefully Ben B. can follow this one. (I keed, I keed.)

  • Pingback: Melky Cabrera will skip the World Baseball Classic | Yankees Rumors - NYYankeesRumors.com

  • Memo

    Won’t you be able to tell from damage who hit whom? If she plowed into him while he was stopped unless it was head-on wouldn’t the damage show that?

    And Florida is not a contributory negligence jurisdiction.

  • Pingback: snow removal prices