Seahawks Insider

Trial date maintained in Marshawn Lynch’s DUI case

Post by Todd Dybas / The News Tribune on Nov. 1, 2013 at 4:27 pm with 17 Comments »
November 1, 2013 5:43 pm

A judge in Alameda County Court denied a motion to suppress evidence and dismiss Marshawn Lynch’s DUI case on Friday, according to Teresa Drenick, assistant district attorney for the Alameda County District Attorney’s office.

The motion to suppress evidence and the motion to dismiss the matter were heard in front of Judge Yolanda Northridge today in department 115.  The court denied both motions.

A jury trial date of Dec. 27 has been maintained for the case. The Seahawks close the regular season at home Dec. 29 against the St. Louis Rams.

Lynch’s lawyer, Ivan Golde, said he will work to get a continuance so the trial does not take place during the season.

Lynch’s court date stems from charges filed against him for driving under the influence of alcohol July 14, 2012.

Lynch, 27, was arrested by the California Highway Patrol early Saturday morning on July 14, 2012, when a police officer observed him driving north on Interstate 880 in Oakland, weaving in and out of lanes in a white Ford van, and nearly colliding with two cars.

After failing a preliminary sobriety test, Lynch was taken into custody and transported to the Alameda County Sheriff department’s north county jail in Oakland. Lynch submitted to a breathalyzer test, and the test came back positive that his blood alcohol content level was over the state’s legal limit of 0.08.

The Alameda County District Attorney’s office filed charges against Lynch for driving under the influence of alcohol on Wednesday, July 18, 2012.

Lynch pleaded not guilty to charges of allegedly driving under the influence of alcohol in Alameda County Superior Court in August 2012.

Lynch was at Seahawks practice Friday and is expected to play Sunday despite being listed twice this week on the injury report because he was bothered by his knee.

Leave a comment Comments → 17
  1. GeorgiaHawk says:

    So what does this all mean Chuck?

  2. pabuwal says:

    I’m guessing this means Lynch is definitely going to trial and we have to hope that his Lawyer is successful in getting a continuance so the trial begins after the Super Bowl.

  3. Dukeshire says:

    Has a simple DUI ever been drug out for this long? Good grief.

  4. chuck_easton says:

    What this means is Lynch’s attorney was not able to get key evidence dismissed. That would likely be breathalyzer or video.

    It’s now an uphill battle and lynch could be looking at a DUI conviction.

    What it means for Seattle is we should start planning on a 4 game suspension to start 2014.

    And now we know why the team ‘wasted,’ a second round pick on Michael. Turbin and Michael are likely going to start next season as the 1and 2 backs.

  5. Southendzone says:

    Chuck, I was under the impression that if you can afford a good lawyer, it’s really unlikely you will get a full on DUI conviction. Worst case you would plea down to something else.

    Just because the pre-trial motion didn’t work, does that mean he might still have a shot in trial, or in pre-trial negotiations with the prosecutor?

  6. Thanks, chuck.

  7. chuck_easton says:

    Look at it from the prosecutors position. Lynch’s lawyer just tried the Hail Mary and was roundly shot down by the judge.

    What’s the incentive to consider a plea to a reduced charge now?

    The DA was just handed. A victory. Blood in the water. Yes shark/lawyer reference.

  8. Is there time on the trial for Lynch to be suspended yet this season?

  9. Didn’t LeRoy Hill have an arrest for DUI? I don’t remember that ever going anywhere(?)

  10. chuck_easton says:

    Hills arrest was for being asleep and under the influence.

    He was put on probation for that.

    Again, Lynch’s counsel just tried an end run and it didn’t work. If I’m the prosecutor I’d be telling Lynch any deal is off the table now. Full guilty plea or we go to trial.

  11. montanamike2 says:

    I hope the wake up call helped fix our woes.

  12. asherinkirkland says:

    The prosecution still has to meet its burden of proof. As I recall, there were issues with timing of the tests, such that Lynch’s BAC was going up, indicating it was below the limit when he was actually driving. I read another report that the arresting officer just changed his testimony about how long he followed Lynch before stopping. His story changed from a mile to a fifth of a mile. Plenty of fodder to raise reasonable doubt.

    In sum, I don’t think these rulings make it any more likely that Lynch will be convicted. The prosecutor still has plenty of incentive to negotiate this down.

  13. If it’s his first, it should be lowered to a neg. driving. Unless his lawyer thinks that he can get him off completely with a trial, these things rarely actually go to trial. Prosecutors rather settle the charge with a plea instead of wasting money and time with a trial. Well, at least in Washington, from me and my friends experiences, and that’s using a public defender and low rent attorneys.

  14. MikeFromNewJersey says:

    This judge must be a 9ers fan. Thats all I can think of.. I mean this was a victimless crime(thank god of course) So really all that should happen is that he loses his license for a year and gets hit with a huge fine.. Got to be a 9ers fan!

  15. chuck_easton says:

    Good question Georgia,

    It’s true that a first conviction does not tend to result in a suspension. But Lynch has been suspended under the personal conduct policy so the league could determine he’s a repeat offender and give a suspension.

    Nothing is ever black and white where the Seahawks are involved.

  16. Obviously, Lynch could still win if they go to trial and be convicted of nothing. That’s up to the jury. The prosecutor could still agree to a deal as well. I have no idea how likely that is. I’m sure it’s less likely now as Chuck said. Obviously Lynch would choose to go to trial if they don’t offer any deal. The only reason not to in that case for a person would be money issues, i.e having to pay your lawyer extra potentially for each day of the trial, but I doubt Lynch is worried about that.

We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0