Leyritz sentenced to probation in DUI


A judge in Florida sentenced former Yankee Jim Leyritz to probation and fined him $500 for his misdemeanor DUI conviction. Leyritz was arrested in December 2007 when he collided with another car at a Fort Lauderdale intersection, resulting in the death of the other driver. Late last month, Leyritz was acquitted of charges in his case for manslaughter DUI.

Categories : Asides, News
  • yankthemike

    it’s a disgrace. i guess if the person you kill is also drunk also it makes everything alright.

    • tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Ridiculous Upside the Elder

      i guess if the person you kill is also drunk also it makes everything alright.

      No, it doesn’t make everything alright, but it does mitigate your personal contribution to the death that occurred, and that is all the American legal system is really concerned with.

      If the person you killed with your negligent actions was herself negligent and increased the likelihood that any person (drunk or not drunk) could have killed her, then yes, I see why a court of law would determine that the tragic consequence of your foolish action was not 100% your own fault.

      • Ed

        That’s not really why he got off.

        When the defense questioned the witnesses, it turned out that they didn’t actually see what happened. They were in the area looking away from the intersection, and turned when they heard the crash.

        When they saw the accident, Leyritz had a red light and the woman had a green light. Based on that, there’s two possibilities. The prosecution claims Leyritz ran a red light and hit the woman. Leyritz claims he had a yellow light, and the woman went through a red light.

        Both versions of the story boil down to a drunk driver running a red light and causing a crash. It’s basically 50/50 odds which story is right. Our legal system requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, hence why he was found not guilty.

  • Rod

    Driving DUI should not automatically make you legally responsible for someone else’s negligence. The other driver (not Leyritz) ran a red light. That was the determination of the jury in the manslaughter case, and also the judge in the sentencing. The other driver was more intoxicated than Leyritz. Although Leyritzs’ blood alcohol was too high to drive, it did not contribute to the other driver’s carelessness/wrongfulness or loss of life, and he should not {and therefore did not] bear any responsibility for what happened.

    • Bob Stone

      It’s sad. But you’re right.

    • Ed

      The other driver (not Leyritz) ran a red light. That was the determination of the jury in the manslaughter case, and also the judge in the sentencing.

      Where’d you see that? Every story I’ve seen simply said they couldn’t prove which driver had a red light.

      • Rod

        From the ESPN MLB story:

        “. . . Jurors decided that Leyritz did not run a red light and cause the crash, and evidence showed it was Veitch who likely ran the light. Veitch was also driving drunk before the crash and was thrown from her vehicle because she was not wearing a seat belt, according to court documents. . . .”

  • Monteroisdinero

    Aceves RBUI? Riding Bicycle Under the Influence? The Gangsta is mucho stupido. Closest “on topic” of interest I could come up with.

  • All Star Carl

    Dudes always been clutch. No surprise here.

  • mike c

    talk about getting away with murder

    • Rod

      Let’s say you’ve had a few drinks and come upon a person above you on a bridge, drunker than you, waivering and teetering on the edge. You watch a short time. The person falls and dies. Did you just “get away with murder?”

      • mike c

        did i hit him with my car and knock him off the bridge?

  • Hughesus Christo

    Would like a venn diagram consisting of ARod *personality* defenders vs. Leyritz defenders. The other person being drunk is a loophole, not an explanation.

    • Rod


      being punished for something you did not cause is an injustice,

      not a loophole.

    • Ed

      The other person being drunk doesn’t have much to do with why he got off.

      Two drunks crashed under a traffic light. One died. The prosecution charged the one who survived with everything they could. They didn’t have any proof that he was the one that caused the accident, hence why he got off.

      If the woman wasn’t drunk, sure, it makes it more likely that Leyritz was the one that was wrong, but even then, it’s not proof, so Leyritz still isn’t guilty.

      • Rod

        Jeez, Ed. Way too much logic there. Really gets in the way of seat-of-the-pants gut feelings.

        • Ed

          Sorry, this logic thing is a horrible habit of mine. It’s a hard one to break.

  • Sean C

    The fact that this case is finally finished in 2010 is COMPLETELY ridiculous.

    • Monteroisdinero

      not ridiculou$ to the lawyer$ who charge by the hour.