Alfonzo Denard Arrested (again)

[NinerSickness]

More good news for the Pats:

Alfonzo Dennard of Patriots arrested for DUI, police say - NFL.com

 

[EaseUrStorm]

That dude should be cooked. Maybe the Bangels will take a flyer on him.

Take the cheap limo ride! It might depend somewhat on how bad the dui was. Oh wait he didn't consent to the breathalizer or other testing. We'll see how that backfires (honestly could that actually help him?).

They should really cut him on principal, especially with everything else going on. I was thinking the only saving grace would be if he had a breathalizer that put him in the grey area right on the borderline.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

That dude should be cooked. Maybe the Bangels will take a flyer on him.

Take the cheap limo ride! It might depend somewhat on how bad the dui was. Oh wait he didn't consent to the breathalizer or other testing. We'll see how that backfires (honestly could that actually help him?).

They should really cut him on principal, especially with everything else going on. I was thinking the only saving grace would be if he had a breathalizer that put him in the grey area right on the borderline.

Refusing the breathalyzer could definitely help him. They won't have a BAC result for him, so unless there's bad driving, it could be tough to convict. Especially in Nebraska. Most states - like CA - have provisions that can penalize someone for a refusal, and allow the jury to convict on that basis, but it's tough to win on that argument.

 

[Pharcyde]

He was actually trying to take one for the team.... He was creating news to detract from hernandez

 

[dredinis21]

Tweet from The Fake ESPN:

Pats are now leading the league in arrests this offseason.

On a related note, the Bengals are holding team meetings to discuss what when wrong.

 

[dredinis21]

Tweet from The Fake ESPN:

Pats are now leading the league in arrests this offseason.

On a related note, the Bengals are holding team meetings to discuss what WENT wrong.

Fixed.

 

[my2cents]

Refusing the breathalyzer could definitely help him. They won't have a BAC result for him, so unless there's bad driving, it could be tough to convict. Especially in Nebraska. Most states - like CA - have provisions that can penalize someone for a refusal, and allow the jury to convict on that basis, but it's tough to win on that argument.

That isn't accurate at all. Even without the BAC test, there are still standardized field sobriety tests that can be performed (and most "drunks" are foolish enough to take those tests because they think they can pass - they overestimate their "tolerance" level). Even assuming that he refused the standardized field sobriety tests, its a relatively easy victory for the prosecution. On the day of trial the Defendant stands there and pleads not guilty and alleges the State has no evidence of his guilt, however, prosecutors are allowed to argue the fact that a defendant refused tests. The argument to the jury is that the Defendant now stands in court claiming they are not guilty of the offense alleged on x date, when the defendant was the only person in the world with sole control over the evidence that would have conclusively proven they were not guilty (or guilty) on x date and choose not to submit to those tests and let such evidence dissipate. Only a person whom actually thought they were guilty on x date would do such a thing. That argument wins at trial every time.

 

[EaseUrStorm]

Refusing the breathalyzer could definitely help him. They won't have a BAC result for him, so unless there's bad driving, it could be tough to convict. Especially in Nebraska. Most states - like CA - have provisions that can penalize someone for a refusal, and allow the jury to convict on that basis, but it's tough to win on that argument.

They cited him for not taking a test, and also for driving over the line so one might infer/imply he was swerving.

I don't ever plan on finding out the hard way, but I always thought in the back of my mind it's best not to take the test right away and delay everything until you get hauled to the station. Then change your mind when they push for a blood test. In California if they hit you anyway for not taking the test, tell them at that point you'll take a breathalizer (if it's still an option). Buying that extra time could get you back to the legal limit, especially if it's a busy night. Players should really tune in to find the best dui mitigation strategy.

 

[MHSL82]

They cited him for not taking a test, and also for driving over the line so one might infer/imply he was swerving.

I don't ever plan on finding out the hard way, but I always thought in the back of my mind it's best not to take the test right away and delay everything until you get hauled to the station. Then change your mind when they push for a blood test. In California if they hit you anyway for not taking the test, tell them at that point you'll take a breathalizer (if it's still an option). Buying that extra time could get you back to the legal limit, especially if it's a busy night. Players should really tune in to find the best dui mitigation strategy.

Yeah, in addition to the best one: not getting drunk and driving.

 

[EaseUrStorm]

Yeah, in addition to the best one: not getting drunk and driving.

Sorry but it ain't gonna happen. Best they can hope for is the hail mary stall out plan.

 

[redseat]

The Patriots recently changed the font on their logo, switching from loopy cursive script to block lettering. If their players keep running afoul of the law, they’re going to have to rename the new type “cell block” lettering.

New England Patriots cornerback Alfonzo Dennard is the latest character risk player to get arrested - Sports - The Boston Globe

 

[dblakejr7]

latest tweets say dennard passed breath test twice and passed a field sobriety test.. so.. he was arrest for suspission of DUI.. but he passed all the tests.. something doesnt add up..

 

[dblakejr7]

latest tweets say dennard passed breath test twice and passed a field sobriety test.. so.. he was arrest for suspission of DUI.. but he passed all the tests.. something doesnt add up..

 

[Crimsoncrew]

That isn't accurate at all. Even without the BAC test, there are still standardized field sobriety tests that can be performed (and most "drunks" are foolish enough to take those tests because they think they can pass - they overestimate their "tolerance" level). Even assuming that he refused the standardized field sobriety tests, its a relatively easy victory for the prosecution. On the day of trial the Defendant stands there and pleads not guilty and alleges the State has no evidence of his guilt, however, prosecutors are allowed to argue the fact that a defendant refused tests. The argument to the jury is that the Defendant now stands in court claiming they are not guilty of the offense alleged on x date, when the defendant was the only person in the world with sole control over the evidence that would have conclusively proven they were not guilty (or guilty) on x date and choose not to submit to those tests and let such evidence dissipate. Only a person whom actually thought they were guilty on x date would do such a thing. That argument wins at trial every time.

It is true that field sobriety tests would assist a conviction. If he refused the FSTs and the chemical test, and there wasn't bad driving, good luck getting a jury of 12 people (or however many a jury consists of in NE) to convict. It's possible, but it's VERY hard to do. Especially if he has a good attorney. Although because this is a high profile case, the prosecution may put a more experienced DA on it.

 

[MHSL82]

latest tweets say dennard passed breath test twice and passed a field sobriety test.. so.. he was arrest for suspission of DUI.. but he passed all the tests.. something doesnt add up..

I thought that was his claim, in which I don't know what to believe. People make things up; the police can corrupt. At this point, both have incentive to make things up or maintain a previous lie.

 

[my2cents]

It is true that field sobriety tests would assist a conviction. If he refused the FSTs and the chemical test, and there wasn't bad driving, good luck getting a jury of 12 people (or however many a jury consists of in NE) to convict. It's possible, but it's VERY hard to do. Especially if he has a good attorney. Although because this is a high profile case, the prosecution may put a more experienced DA on it.

I work in the system and convictions arise out of those same set of circumstances all of the time. No right minded (innocent) person would do such a thing (refuse all tests to let the proof of their innocence disappear). Granted, maybe in a more liberal jurisdiction liked California or Massachusetts, a jury may be more forgiving, but the jurisdictions which I've practiced in, these types of cases result in convictions all the time.

Im not trying to spit hairs or be argumentative (I apologize if I come off that way), I just hear of a lot of "legal myths" out there (like its always better to refuse the tests), that simply are not true and in most instances end up causing more problems for defendants, so I just take every opportunity I can to dispel those myths.

 

[NinerSickness]

latest tweets say dennard passed breath test twice and passed a field sobriety test.. so.. he was arrest for suspission of DUI.. but he passed all the tests.. something doesnt add up..

Source?

 

[MHSL82]

Source?

On the radio, I heard it was Dennard who claimed that. But the guy on the radio could be wrong.

 

[redseat]

I work in the system and convictions arise out of those same set of circumstances all of the time. No right minded (innocent) person would do such a thing (refuse all tests to let the proof of their innocence disappear). Granted, maybe in a more liberal jurisdiction liked California or Massachusetts, a jury may be more forgiving, but the jurisdictions which I've practiced in, these types of cases result in convictions all the time.

Im not trying to spit hairs or be argumentative (I apologize if I come off that way), I just hear of a lot of "legal myths" out there (like its always better to refuse the tests), that simply are not true and in most instances end up causing more problems for defendants, so I just take every opportunity I can to dispel those myths.

To me... Refusing to do the tests makes you pretty guilty. if you weren't doing anything wrong then why not do the test? i get its your right to refuse but 9 times out of 10 you should do the tests. You probably have a better chance getting off (if it goes to trial) by trying to prove the test was conducted incorrectly or the FST monitor was rigged or something like that.

 

[NinerSickness]

To me... Refusing to do the tests makes you pretty guilty.

As far as I know, there's no "to me" about it. I think refusing to take a test is enough to convict you of a DUI in most states. But this is just a guess.