Seahawks Insider

Lynch’s DUI court case set for pre-trial on Thursday; motion to suppress continued to Nov. 1

Post by Eric Williams on July 5, 2013 at 11:50 am with 40 Comments »
July 5, 2013 11:50 am

Seattle Seahawks running back Marshawn Lynch’s court date scheduled for today regarding a motion to suppress evidence in Alameda County Court was continued to Nov. 1, according to Teresa Drenick, assistant district attorney for the Alameda County District Attorney’s office.

Lynch’s court date stems from charges filed against him for driving under the influence of alcohol in July of last year.

Lynch’s next court date regarding the matter is a pre-trial hearing scheduled for Thursday, but the parties may negotiate and resolve the matter outside of court at anytime.

If the parties cannot come to an agreement, then the next likely step would be that the matter would be set for trial. At this time, no trial date has been set, but a readiness hearing is scheduled for Dec. 27.

Lynch, 26, was arrested by the California Highway Patrol early Saturday morning on July 14 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.

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

Categories:
Legal system
Leave a comment Comments → 40
  1. Dukeshire says:

    I can’t believe this I dragging on this long. The prosecution has certainly made an offer to Lynch by now. The fact they have not accepted any potential offer leads me to believe he genuinely feels as though he’s innocent or can beat this completely.

  2. Southendzone says:

    Given the Aaron Hernandez case, I think we can easily overlook this one. Beast Mode was just trying to weave through traffic to the end zone.

  3. If I remember correctly, Lynch’s ‘defence’ is rather unusual….. his lawyer has suggested that he was not actually legally drunk while driving but became legally drunk as he absorbed more alcohol into his system due to the time required to go through the process of being pulled over and tested. If this defence works, it will complicate every future DUI.

  4. edstang45 says:

    It’s California you never know every county and every court is different his attorney may be trying to wait for the right judge. Were so close to SB WIN wish this crap would go away

  5. tobis81 says:

    How does it complicate anything? Alcohol takes time to enter your blood stream, it doesn’t happen at the snap if a finger. That’s why the police take multiple tests. To see if your alcohol content is going up, or down. If he blew just barely over the legal limit at the station, and then higher later in during the second test the chances are he was not drunk while he was driving. He was legally drunk 20-30 mins later at the station house. Get some facts then comment bro!

  6. wabubba67 says:

    Delay, delay, delay. With a readiness hearing not scheduled until December 26th, there will likely not be a trial date until well after the Super Bowl (if it’s necessary). Deal with it in March.

  7. bbnate420 says:

    Duke, I think you’re likely right.

    tobis81, spot on. You don’t know what you’re talking about, Blocis. It doesn’t complicate anything. They have to prove that your BAC was over 0.08 WHILE ACTUALLY DRIVING! Not an hour after. Lynch’s lawyer says that he was under the limit on the portable breathalyzer and barely over at the one at the station a significant time later. That suggests he was under while driving. It certainly doesn’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was over. They could still get him to plea or convict him of a lesser charge if the cop can actually prove he was weaving in and out of lanes and driving recklessly, i.e. he has dashcam footage of it.

  8. GeorgiaHawk says:

    The longer he can drag it out the better his chances. In any type case for that matter imo.
    What do you think Chuck?

  9. GeorgiaHawk says:

    I wish we had a pass rusher like Kerney now. 14.5 sacks, but I will never forget what big Walt did to him.

    http://www.seahawks.com/news/articles/article-1/Catching-up-with-Patrick-Kerney/48039828-98c0-45e5-85fe-4d75cb88c032

  10. raymaines says:

    and I wish we had players that were clever enough to call a cab if they’ve been drinking.

  11. chuck_easton says:

    A common defense. If one of the tests is under and the second is over it brings the test into question.

    Bbnate is right usually the first test is the higher of the two. The second test is taken a minimum of 20 minutes after the first and should be lower.

    The fact the BAC was still rising shows Lynch likely wasnt legally drunk at the time he was stopped and very likely wasnt exhibiting any visible signs of intoxication when he got behind the wheel.

  12. sluggo42 says:

    Why you guys harshing on Blocis?

    It’s interesting, and I don’t know about if they did multiple tests, and maybe it will bring a measure of complication to future cases.
    The only thing about his post I found bothersome was his defence of the word defense. Hahehehe
    Ya, ok…

    But, I don’t see anything set in stone here. While I now agree with the thought of the bac rising after the arrest due to absorption, who knows how he drank prior to the testing.

    I’m no authority by any means, and actually Nate, you opened my eyes to just how much a big guy can actually drink before blowing over the limit a few posts back. So this is all new to me. And if this has already been through the courts system and is nothing new, then I stand corrected….

  13. sluggo42 says:

    Oh,
    I see now, ignore my last post… Doh

  14. bbnate420 says:

    Sluggo, there were definitely multiple tests if he was tested at the station. What Chuck is saying is that they take 2 tests within 20 minutes of each other so they can determine if you BAC is rising or falling. I also believe that Lynch’s lawyer said he was under when he took a portable breathalyzer at the scene, but I don’t remember if that for absolutely sure. I think he blew .07 at the scene if I remember correctly.

    I would assume the cop took him to the station to test him again because the portable breathalyzers aren’t as accurate and he was close to the limit. I believe Lynch’s lawyer is saying he tested under at the scene and the station tests show his BAC was rising. That would strongly suggest he was under the limit while behind the wheel. Like I said, they can still try to get him on a reckless or negligent driving if the cop has proof that he was driving erratically, especially since he had some alcohol in his system.

    It’s definitely smart for everyone to plan on not driving if they might have more than 1-3 drinks, depending on your size. But there’s a difference between stupid and illegal. I never drive if I’m going to drink more than 3 drinks after having a close call with a DUI.

  15. sluggo42 says:

    Ya, thanks Nate, I get it now. I was totally unaware of how this would play into the scenario. Very interesting.

    But yes, dudes a multi- billionaire.. Take a freaking limo mate…

    Old news, but just another refresher for the team… Don’t be a fool and do stupid things….

  16. raymaines says:

    Impaired is the key word here. At higher than 0.08 you’re legally impaired no matter your size, shape or gender but being under 0.08 doesn’t mean you’re not impaired.

  17. GeorgiaHawk says:

    A lot of former DUI experts here. Lol.

  18. Witness the infamous white van Beast was driving while he got his DUI in this NOC clip: 2:02

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbwgmB1PVsM

    A message to all the Seahawks:

    Get yourself a limo service or a cab, please!

  19. Real live footage of Ahmad “Above Reproach” Brooks choosing his designated driver: enjoy.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Oel_xDpNZ8

    Jimbo Harbaugh, you may stick your foot in your mouth now.

  20. bbnate420 says:

    Georgia, I take it you always stay parked in front of the computer during Happy Hour? Like I’ve said, I was pulled over and tested at 0.081 on a portable breathalyzer. I was then tested at the station and blew a .0693 and then a 0.0695. They charged me with a DUI anyways and tried to get me to plead down to a negligent driving. I forked over the cash for a good lawyer and they decided to drop it. I wasn’t going to plea. I learned a lot about how this works during that time. I have a few friends that have gone through it too unfortunately.

    raymaines, BAC doesn’t equate with impairment equally in everyone. A person who never drinks will likely be more impaired at .06 than someone that drinks regularly will be at .08-.10. BAC is just a measure of the amount of alcohol in the blood. Not an absolute measure of impairment. Everyone will become more impaired the more they drink. That is true. Impairment is subjective and harder to prosecute. They had to set a BAC limit to have an objective measure. They even had to change the wording of the laws to make it illegal to test above .08 on a breathalyzer instead of having a BAC of above .08. That’s because a breathalyzer score of over .08 doesn’t automatically mean someone has a BAC of over .08. It depends on your physiology. It transfers to peoples’ breath at different rates. I’ve heard that’s why they use DUI AND DWI now. It’s only called DWI now when you test over .15, at least in Washington.

  21. GeorgiaHawk says:

    Not always nate,however my girl friend makes me pick up the un eaten Cheetos off the floor sometimes.

    Dam you again Duke!

    http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/06/travel/usa-beer-towns/index.html?hpt=hp_t5

  22. GeorgiaHawk says:

    The most important two players on our team imo.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcvlGWzMIFw

  23. alittlecommonsense says:

    at least it won’t affect this season’s play! Lynch can go to court mid-February. Won’t have any free time until then…Lombardi 2013!

  24. “I can’t believe this I dragging on this long. The prosecution has certainly made an offer to Lynch by now. The fact they have not accepted any potential offer leads me to believe he genuinely feels as though he’s innocent or can beat this completely.”

    Or they have no case and are just trying to stall the verdict and impending suspension back as far as possible. If they had a good case they would be taking it to trial as soon as possible. Lynch is guilty and he is just trying to miss as little football this year as possible. Would be ironic if his trial happened at the end of December and he got suspended for the playoffs.

  25. Dukeshire says:

    If that was Lynch’s feeling, they’d get this over with sooner than later, IMO. It could have all been handled during the offseason.

    Also, a suspension is not a certainty.

  26. bbnate420 says:

    Taylo, congratulations on a truly idiotic post.

  27. Comput3rguy says:

    I hope he gets years in Prison

  28. jawpeace says:

    I was going to post along the lines of BBnate. Just because your BAC is not at or above the legal limit does not mean you are impaired/driving under the influence. I am sure the cop cam has video of Lynch almost hitting two cars and weaving. That is enough to show impairment and he was a danger no matter if he was just below the legal limit when driving and getting pulled over. This should really be an open-shut case. But money has power and that is delay.

  29. bbnate420 says:

    jawpeace, I don’t think you got the gist of what I was saying. I wouldn’t assume that there is footage of him driving. Not all cops have cams in their cars. Even if he did, it’s hardly an open and shut case. It’s not a DUI if he’s not over the limit, at least in Washington State. Maybe it’s different in California? They could try to convict him of reckless or negligent driving. If they don’t have footage of him driving and what Lynch’s lawyer says about the breathalyzer readings is true, I don’t see why he would lie about that, then the State really has no case. So it’d be an open and shut acquittal. If the breathalyzer readings hurt Lynch’s case, his lawyer wouldn’t say anything publicly about them.

    And I’m not referring to you jawpeace, but it’s amazing how these threads always bring the trolling losers out of the woodwork. It’s very enjoyable.

  30. Success breeds jealousy and hatred. Hey troll ( Comput3rguy ) the beast will stiff arm your hopes and crush all your dreams under his neon green Nikes this season. Just sit back, relax,and enjoy.

  31. bbnate420 says:

    Well said, CCVI.

  32. jawpeace says:

    I agree about trolls I always try to give people the benefit of doubt until they remove it. Like I would say it is possible that Comput3rguy lost someone dear to him or her because of a drunk driver. But if I had to bet money I would say more than likely it is a drunk asinine 40-whiner fan.

  33. Trueblue22 says:

    It is almost always in the defendant’s interest to drag this case on. Witnesses accounts vary, memories fade and evidence ends up missing…all end up favoring the defense. That being said, it is totally wrong to drink and drive. However, no life was lost and this is still a misdemeanor in a league where murders and drug use are becoming the norm. This is not to rationalize Lynch’s behavior. Lynch should absolutely pay for his crime. But one mistake is no reason to bash him. Lynch should pay for his crime and move on.
    “Judge not that ye will not be judged.”
    Go Seahawks!

  34. sticksnstones says:

    HE WAS DRUNK AND COULD HAVE KILLED SOMEBODY YET YOU IDIOTS ON HERE COULD CARE LESS. I HOPE THE SEAHAWKS LOSE EVERY GAME, THANKS TO MARSHAWN LYNCH. TRUEBLUE22, “ONE MISTAKE IS NO REASON TO BASH HIM” HE PLEADED NOT GUILTY AND HE WAS UNDER THE INFLUENCE, HE IS A LIAR.

  35. Wah wah wah

  36. bbnate420 says:

    You must be right since you wrote it in ALL CAPS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;-)

    Go back to Wah Whinesisco and bash someone over the head with a beer bottle, dumb ass.

  37. sticksnstones says:

    Who are you supposed to be, the pot head moderator. HA!

  38. bbnate420 says:

    Very funny. Now do the world a favor and go jump off a bridge.

  39. Ode to Trolls

    Sticks n stones may break my bones,
    but Kam will break Vern’s vertebrae,

    Kaeppy likey dolphins more than
    goldie pantsed team by the bay.

    Caps lock key stuck,
    head stuck up butt,

    Niners fan can’t recognize simple deductive reasoning,
    Hawks will have to spice him up with a season’s worth of seasoning,

    Kissing biceps shirtless, tatted up and low-riding,
    Beer bottle smashed over teammate’s head, punching and fighting.

    Point to the sky, franchise guy, #3 is law-abiding.
    Sundays @ the CLink rock, Shout Go Hawks, Russell Wilson sighting.

    Harbaugh and his arrogant bunch will soon realize they’re doomed,
    Messing with Marshawn, and the boys of the Legion of Boom.

    Hopes – crushed. Dreams – dashed.
    Beer bottle over teammate’s head – smash!
    The only logical conclusion is the Niners are doomed.
    We play press/man can’t hang with The Legion of Doom.

  40. LeePHilI says:

    “Comput3rguy
    July 6, 2013 at 5:03 pm
    I hope he gets years in Prison”

    As my old daddy used to say…you can wish in one hand and……

*
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