Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 85

Thread: Coach Few DUI Sentencing

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    5,655

    Default Coach Few DUI Sentencing

    Few took responsibility for his actions during the hearing and said he was “pleading guilty because I am guilty,” according to court minutes.
    He was sentenced to 24 hrs of community service and a $1,000 fine, in lieu of 4 days in jail

    https://www.spokesman.com/stories/20...plete-communi/

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Laguna
    Posts
    7,776

    Default

    OK

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,600

    Default

    For a first offense with no priors - Usually, these end up with a negligent driving citation several months removed from the incident following legal jockeying. Few took responsibility. A great look in my book.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Bainbridge Island
    Posts
    1,239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZagsObserver View Post
    For a first offense with no priors - Usually, these end up with a negligent driving citation several months removed from the incident following legal jockeying. Few took responsibility. A great look in my book.
    I agree. He certainly could have pled down and cut a deal and avoided a DUI conviction. He didn’t.

    “I plead guilty because I am guilty.” How refreshing.

    In my book this is Few stepping up. He is ending this now; he is admitting and owning what he did, and he’s taking whatever consequences that means. This is leadership. A great example of how to own and learn from your mistakes. Very few do this anymore.

    Again—refreshing.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    19,980

    Default

    Good call, coach. Now, let's close the book on this.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Tacoma WA
    Posts
    10,762

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 229SintoZag View Post
    I agree. He certainly could have pled down and cut a deal and avoided a DUI conviction. He didn’t.

    “I plead guilty because I am guilty.” How refreshing.

    In my book this is Few stepping up. He is ending this now; he is admitting and owning what he did, and he’s taking whatever consequences that means. This is leadership. A great example of how to own and learn from your mistakes. Very few do this anymore.

    Again—refreshing.
    He is admitting and owning what he did. I think you can also admit and own what you do by agreeing to a stipulated order of continuance, completing conditions of the stipulation such as victim's panel, alcohol/drug class and paying courts costs and then agreeing to plead to Neg 1. Not sure if Idaho has that option which is SOP in WA. Considering how light his sentence is probably makes little difference.
    If you can't handle the confusion, stay out of the Foo!

    Uber on GuBoards: "Pathetic. We've got posters just sleepwalking through threads."

    No Foo for You!

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,780

    Default

    Glad he pleaded guilty. Time to move on.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    207

    Default

    Took ownership of what he did.

    Back to basketball.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Bainbridge Island
    Posts
    1,239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UberZagFan View Post
    He is admitting and owning what he did. I think you can also admit and own what you do by agreeing to a stipulated order of continuance, completing conditions of the stipulation such as victim's panel, alcohol/drug class and paying courts costs and then agreeing to plead to Neg 1. Not sure if Idaho has that option which is SOP in WA. Considering how light his sentence is probably makes little difference.
    Except for the part about negligent driving not being synonymous with DUI.

    He pled guilty to and is accepting a conviction for DUI. That’s significantly different from pleading guilty to a lesser offense.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2020
    Posts
    79

    Default

    Correct/classy/honest move by Few.

    Now how about those conspiracy theorists here claiming he would have (or did at the station?) blow a mystery hypothetical 3rd alcohol test within legal limits (less than 2/3rd his twice-measured level).

    Simplest explanation is the correct one - his 2 consecutive matching field tests showing he was 2 recent drinks above the legal limit actually just reflected reality.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    sierra foothills
    Posts
    14,277

    Default

    R E S P E C T

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    1,036

    Default

    He did the right thing, but I wouldn't go so far as to applaud this outcome. Glad to see it's a closed chapter though, and now everyone can (thankfully without incident) put this behind them.
    Quote Originally Posted by Reborn View Post
    Go Zags!!!

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    5,655

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 229SintoZag View Post
    Except for the part about negligent driving not being synonymous with DUI.

    He pled guilty to and is accepting a conviction for DUI. That’s significantly different from pleading guilty to a lesser offense.
    My respect was already very high and is now higher. “Pleading guilty because I’m guilty” is a perfect thing to say/do, in my opinion.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    TriCities, WA and CDA, ID
    Posts
    57

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZagsObserver View Post
    For a first offense with no priors - Usually, these end up with a negligent driving citation several months removed from the incident following legal jockeying. Few took responsibility. A great look in my book.
    I agree Fewie took responsibility for his actions, but your assertion that these “end up with a negligent driving citation” is patently wrong. In the “old days”, it was relatively easy to get a “withheld judgment” for a first or even a second time DUI in Kootenai County which meant if you followed the terms of the withheld judgment, the violation would disappear. But it hasn’t been that way for more than 20 years, and I never saw a DUI arrest get reduced to negligent/reckless driving if the initial stop and subsequent BA were valid. If the initial stop was bogus, then maybe. With the influence of groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Drivers and others (I can still recall seeing their reps in the courtroom taking notes of the judge, the prosecutor, defense counsel, the BA or Blood results, number of prior events, and the sentence) put a stop to that. I would think if you are especially well connected it might be possible to still pull it off, but with something as “newsworthy” as Few’s arrest, I doubt it. Few did the right thing; his sentence looks to be appropriate and proportional for the violation, and now we can all move along.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,600

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AirborneJag View Post
    I agree Fewie took responsibility for his actions, but your assertion that these “end up with a negligent driving citation” is patently wrong. In the “old days”, it was relatively easy to get a “withheld judgment” for a first or even a second time DUI in Kootenai County which meant if you followed the terms of the withheld judgment, the violation would disappear. But it hasn’t been that way for more than 20 years, and I never saw a DUI arrest get reduced to negligent/reckless driving if the initial stop and subsequent BA were valid. If the initial stop was bogus, then maybe. With the influence of groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Drivers and others (I can still recall seeing their reps in the courtroom taking notes of the judge, the prosecutor, defense counsel, the BA or Blood results, number of prior events, and the sentence) put a stop to that. I would think if you are especially well connected it might be possible to still pull it off, but with something as “newsworthy” as Few’s arrest, I doubt it. Few did the right thing; his sentence looks to be appropriate and proportional for the violation, and now we can all move along.
    I’m sorry, but you are simply incorrect here. It happens here all the time. Just happened with a known individual, and in his case, there were other factors which should have compounded the initial charge. The prosecutor’s statement: “this is typically how we deal with a first offense.”

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    West Seattle
    Posts
    1,086

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZagsObserver View Post
    I’m sorry, but you are simply incorrect here. It happens here all the time. Just happened with a known individual, and in his case, there were other factors which should have compounded the initial charge. The prosecutor’s statement: “this is typically how we deal with a first offense.”
    My experience, based on familiarity with a number of first-time DUI cases, is same. Coach Few did not get treated better than most and may have been treated worse than many. His willingness to deal with situation quickly, plainly and directly is all that I expected/hoped for. For those who think prosecutors should seek and courts should be imposing stiffer penalties, I share your view to some extent. Get active in your community and support prosecutorial and judicial candidates that will do so recognizing the trend in many communities is running decidedly in the opposite direction currently.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    426

    Default

    To me it showed a lot about him that he didn’t bust out the “do you know who I am?” Thing when pulled over. There are many big time coaches who would. He is a man of character.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Lacrosse, Washington
    Posts
    7,922

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZagsObserver View Post
    I’m sorry, but you are simply incorrect here. It happens here all the time. Just happened with a known individual, and in his case, there were other factors which should have compounded the initial charge. The prosecutor’s statement: “this is typically how we deal with a first offense.”
    My 35 years in law enforcement with hundreds of dwi cases this is fairly standard for run of mill dui

    Man of character admitting error taking accountability taking consequences closing this chapter and moving on in life with lesson learned
    Basketball...The Toy Department of Life

    Don't mess wth happy...Coach Few

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    TriCities, WA and CDA, ID
    Posts
    57

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZagsObserver View Post
    I’m sorry, but you are simply incorrect here. It happens here all the time. Just happened with a known individual, and in his case, there were other factors which should have compounded the initial charge. The prosecutor’s statement: “this is typically how we deal with a first offense.”
    To accept your version of how the law works in Idaho, you would have to conclude that Few got absolutely screwed by the State of Idaho and by his attorney who must have rendered ineffective assistance of counsel and should be sued for malpractice. If Few could have simply got off with a negligent driving charge, why would he have ever considered pleading guilty to a DUI? As far as we know, it was his first offense in Idaho. Second, I think his BA was reported at something like .11 and a .13, not very far over the legal limit of .08, so he wasn’t charged with gross intoxication. Clearly he could have litigated whether the stop was legally correct, whether the BA was administered in accordance with the required procedure and so on. If the prosecutors routinely dismiss a first time DUI in exchange for a negligent driving charge, Few must be a fool for pleading to a DUI and his attorney clearly incompetent. You must have far more experience in the Idaho court system than do I so I will defer to your characterization of how easy it is to get a DUI reduced. Maybe you should offer to represent Few in a malpractice claim against his attorney.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    5,655

    Default

    Coach Few is a different kind of guy and maybe he wanted to own up to what he did and move on. The legally prudent thing isn't automatically the moral one.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,600

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AirborneJag View Post
    To accept your version of how the law works in Idaho, you would have to conclude that Few got absolutely screwed by the State of Idaho and by his attorney who must have rendered ineffective assistance of counsel and should be sued for malpractice. If Few could have simply got off with a negligent driving charge, why would he have ever considered pleading guilty to a DUI? As far as we know, it was his first offense in Idaho. Second, I think his BA was reported at something like .11 and a .13, not very far over the legal limit of .08, so he wasn’t charged with gross intoxication. Clearly he could have litigated whether the stop was legally correct, whether the BA was administered in accordance with the required procedure and so on. If the prosecutors routinely dismiss a first time DUI in exchange for a negligent driving charge, Few must be a fool for pleading to a DUI and his attorney clearly incompetent. You must have far more experience in the Idaho court system than do I so I will defer to your characterization of how easy it is to get a DUI reduced. Maybe you should offer to represent Few in a malpractice claim against his attorney.
    Clearly you haven’t participated in previous threads on this matter. It’s not simply a legal case. It’s an image, coach, pr, role model situation, the cost of which is more impactful than the legal outcome. It would have taken a couple more months of legal maneuvering. He couldn’t have said, “I’m plead guilty because I am guilty.” Not worth it for him. The penalty would have been the same regardless. Ask Jazz.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Louisville, KY
    Posts
    206

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AirborneJag View Post
    To accept your version of how the law works in Idaho, you would have to conclude that Few got absolutely screwed by the State of Idaho and by his attorney who must have rendered ineffective assistance of counsel and should be sued for malpractice. If Few could have simply got off with a negligent driving charge, why would he have ever considered pleading guilty to a DUI?...
    One doesn’t have to reach such conclusions at all.

    The Attorney’s job is to explain the available legal courses of action to the client, all possible outcomes and the pros and cons of choosing a particular course of action. In a case like this, it certainly would be prudent to discuss the public perception and professional ramifications in deciding how to proceed.

    The Client decides how to proceed. It is hardly malpractice if a fully informed client decides to plead guilty. And Few isn’t a “fool” for deciding to plead guilty. The vast majority of criminal and civil matters resolve without going to trial and the desire to bring closure to a legal matter is often a driving factor in seeking resolution sooner rather than later. Few could have simply acknowledged he was pleading guilty when asked by the Judge about his plea. Instead Few took full responsibility for his actions.

    By pleading guilty now, rather than dragging this matter out by fighting every aspect of the evidence and verbally responding to the Judge as he did, it certainly appears Few wished to unequivocally take responsibility for his actions and bring this matter to a close.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    19,045

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zag365 View Post
    My experience, based on familiarity with a number of first-time DUI cases, is same. Coach Few did not get treated better than most and may have been treated worse than many. His willingness to deal with situation quickly, plainly and directly is all that I expected/hoped for. For those who think prosecutors should seek and courts should be imposing stiffer penalties, I share your view to some extent. Get active in your community and support prosecutorial and judicial candidates that will do so recognizing the trend in many communities is running decidedly in the opposite direction currently.
    This is exactly right. He got the same treatment everyone else gets.

    It also highlights part of the system that is a huge problem. For some, $1000 is a devastating amount (even though courts will often allow a payment plan), quite obviously, Few has had dinner parties that cost more. That is the system's fault, not coach Few's. In a more just system, the financial penalty would be a percentage of income.

    There could also be an option to do 48-72 more hours of community service in lieu of the fine. Fortunately for coach, he does so much community service he will probably fulfill the requirement 10x over without noticing it.

    I have intentionally stayed away, so I don't know if GU did anything whatsoever w/ respect to a penalty. If GU never gets involved w/ any employee, then fine, situation normal. If it is an issue if another employee is convicted, then I would want the university to treat coach in the same manner. I still have trouble grappling with how a player gets significantly more punishment than a coach in these situations, but I'm generally pro-student in all NCAA matters.

    I am entirely confident this will never happen again w/ coach and will eventually turn into a positive in him helping others. I am still not sure about whether I think the university did the Jesuit value thing in all this, impossible to tell from the outside.
    Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.
    Mark Twain.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    19,045

    Default

    Oh, and for those who think he didn't investigate or litigate all options, there aren't that many options provided there was PC to stop him and we know there was bc someone called the police about a swerving car. If the breathalyzer has been calibrated and cared for, there are no other issues. There simply isn't anything to litigate. It doesn't take 6 months to evaluate all pros and cons of pleading versus "challenging all the evidence" etc.

    This literally looks like every other DUI case with a similar police report.
    Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.
    Mark Twain.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,600

    Default

    Dixie. Perkins got a 2 game suspension for dui.

    So many loopholes to use as an attorney. Again, that’s where the legal maneuvering comes in. Did you know you have to check the mouth a certain way before and after each test? Here’s an example:

    https://www.ncwlife.com/douglas-coun...ne-dui-arrest/

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •