Frattin

[choyt3]

I don't think it was a probable cause thing. I think being a member of the North Dakota hockey team IS considered probable cause.

Also, I wonder if they got anyone from the Fighting Sioux Sports Network to testify about how often St. Frattin practiced while he was home in Alberta after being kicked off the team.

[Shawn-O]

I don't think it was a probable cause thing. I think being a member of the North Dakota hockey team IS considered probable cause.

Also, I wonder if they got anyone from the Fighting Sioux Sports Network to testify about how often St. Frattin practiced while he was home in Alberta after being kicked off the team.

Uncalled for.

[DamStrait]

I don't think it was a probable cause thing. I think being a member of the North Dakota hockey team IS considered probable cause.

Also, I wonder if they got anyone from the Fighting Sioux Sports Network to testify about how often St. Frattin practiced while he was home in Alberta after being kicked off the team.

Has anyone ever met this guy? Is he as much of a total jackass as his posts and blog would indicate?

[brianvf]

Has anyone ever met this guy? Is he as much of a total jackass as his posts and blog would indicate?

He is a Mavericks fan. Enough said.

IMO the guy just wants to drum up attention for his blog, which can provide good information at times, but more often than not loses credibility when he attempts to slam certain players/coaches/teams. He has an obvious dislike for some programs, and his writing certainly doesn't hide that fact. That would be my guess as to why he hasn't progressed past "blog level" in the writing hierarchy world.

[NDFlyer]

Suffice to say that Matt's lawyer posts here from time to time.

[Darth412000]

Suffice to say that Matt's lawyer posts here from time to time.

I think there are a few lawyers that post here from time to time...

Well done!

[hrkac]

He is a Mavericks fan. Enough said.

IMO the guy just wants to drum up attention for his blog, which can provide good information at times, but more often than not loses credibility when he attempts to slam certain players/coaches/teams. He has an obvious dislike for some programs, and his writing certainly doesn't hide that fact. That would be my guess as to why he hasn't progressed past "blog level" in the writing hierarchy world.

what's the blog address?

[GoldenHorde]

He has a joygasm anytime there is a hint of a scandal at a big school (UND, Minn) and totally eats up any sort of feel good story from the small Minnesota schools, while for the most part ignoring or downplaying scandals at the small schools and resenting any sort of feel good story from the big schools.

If Frattin were an MSU player he'd be posting on his blog about how great it was to see a kid who made some mistakes get his life back on track, but because Frattin is a UND player he couldn't wait to head straight for this website to take a cheap shot at the school and make fun of him.

[jodcon]

I can't believe that not one troll has come on here and said that Englestad money bought the jury.

You guys are slipping.

[dagies]

Is it really that hard to believe that the verdict had nothing to do with him being a member of the hockey team? Yes, I am not naive enough to believe that this isnt a possibility, but I do have faith in the ability of people to look at the evidence and not the person. Not to mention the fact that he also got special treatment in had this been any other joe shmoe at UND, it never would have been big news cause no one cares. This is like people saying that Oshie got off the disorderly conduct charge for the elevator because he was a hockey player. No, he got off on that charge because the state would have gotten in trouble had they found him guilty since they were stuck in the elevator. I do not remember the exact reason or ruling for this, but I do remember discussing the incident with a lawyer that I know to see what he would say.

I sat on a DUI/Refusal jury less than a year ago in Hennepin Cty. It was quite interesting, IMO.

The defendant was a person of color, and in and out of trouble, in and out of employment. The jury members were mostly Caucasian, employed, and frankly annoyed at having to spend time away from work at jury duty (all except me, I loved getting out of work).

I was very much afraid of a 12 Angry Men scenario, where everyone would be more interested in getting back to work than giving this guy a fair shake. As the jury foreman, I was especially worried as I felt the responsibility to make sure this didn't happen fell on me. However, I was extremely surprised, pleasantly, at how seriously everyone took their responsibility except for 1 juror. 1 juror was certain after 5 minutes and wouldn't give the time of day to any additional deliberations. Everyone else put their heart into it (and for reasons that had nothing to do with my influence, either).

We had 2 counts to deliberate:

1. Did he refuse to blow, or was he physically incapable of blowing in the Intoxylizer?

2. Was he driving under the influence of alcohol (since they couldn't get a legit read from the Intoxylizer).

I think just about every juror went into the jury room certain they would find this man guilty on both counts. I know I was pretty sure, but I was willing to have an open mind and be swayed either way depending on the deliberations. We had 1.5 days of testimony, and we literally spent a WHOLE day deliberating these 2 points. Actually, it took us about 1 hour to find him guilty on the refusal count, and the rest of the time on the DUI. We went back and forth, and members swayed this way and that as people argued their points of view. In the very end we found him guilty on both counts. But not before this guy had his fair shake.

My feeling coming out of that jury room was that if this guy could get a fair shake from this group of jurors, our system is working fairly well.

My experience is completely anecdotal, but if Frattin's jury deliberated for only 30 minutes on this case, there are only 2 options:

1. You had 12 completely fraudulent jurors that cared about nothing but getting a player out of trouble

or

2. This case was blasted apart in the court room. Completely blasted apart.

I don't care what Chris says because he'll continue to say whatever he wants. IMO, even if this is Grand Forks, I find it very difficult to believe that after jury screening (assuming both attorneys were present) that this jury was stacked with Sioux hockey lovers that would sell their soul to get this kid off of a legit charge. I don't buy it. Maybe there were some members like that, but not 12. All you need are 2-3 people who stand up on their principles and this deliberation would have lasted at least a few hours. No way it ends in 30 minutes.

This was all about the evidence in some way shape or form. This wasn't a biased jury.

[siouxforeverbaby]

I sat on a DUI/Refusal jury less than a year ago in Hennepin Cty. It was quite interesting, IMO.

The defendant was a person of color, and in and out of trouble, in and out of employment. The jury members were mostly Caucasian, employed, and frankly annoyed at having to spend time away from work at jury duty (all except me, I loved getting out of work).

I was very much afraid of a 12 Angry Men scenario, where everyone would be more interested in getting back to work than giving this guy a fair shake. As the jury foreman, I was especially worried as I felt the responsibility to make sure this didn't happen fell on me. However, I was extremely surprised, pleasantly, at how seriously everyone took their responsibility except for 1 juror. 1 juror was certain after 5 minutes and wouldn't give the time of day to any additional deliberations. Everyone else put their heart into it (and for reasons that had nothing to do with my influence, either).

We had 2 counts to deliberate:

1. Did he refuse to blow, or was he physically incapable of blowing in the Intoxylizer?

2. Was he driving under the influence of alcohol (since they couldn't get a legit read from the Intoxylizer).

I think just about every juror went into the jury room certain they would find this man guilty on both counts. I know I was pretty sure, but I was willing to have an open mind and be swayed either way depending on the deliberations. We had 1.5 days of testimony, and we literally spent a WHOLE day deliberating these 2 points. Actually, it took us about 1 hour to find him guilty on the refusal count, and the rest of the time on the DUI. We went back and forth, and members swayed this way and that as people argued their points of view. In the very end we found him guilty on both counts. But not before this guy had his fair shake.

My feeling coming out of that jury room was that if this guy could get a fair shake from this group of jurors, our system is working fairly well.

My experience is completely anecdotal, but if Frattin's jury deliberated for only 30 minutes on this case, there are only 2 options:

1. You had 12 completely fraudulent jurors that cared about nothing but getting a player out of trouble

or

2. This case was blasted apart in the court room. Completely blasted apart.

I don't care what Chris says because he'll continue to say whatever he wants. IMO, even if this is Grand Forks, I find it very difficult to believe that after jury screening (assuming both attorneys were present) that this jury was stacked with Sioux hockey lovers that would sell their soul to get this kid off of a legit charge. I don't buy it. Maybe there were some members like that, but not 12. All you need are 2-3 people who stand up on their principles and this deliberation would have lasted at least a few hours. No way it ends in 30 minutes.

This was all about the evidence in some way shape or form. This wasn't a biased jury.

true, but I am more liable to believe that it was the second option. Just because looking at the evidence brought forth, I can find ways to argue not guilty and I have had no legal training whatsoever. A person with legal experience would be even better.

[jloos]

I sat on a DUI/Refusal jury less than a year ago in Hennepin Cty. It was quite interesting, IMO.

My experience is completely anecdotal, but if Frattin's jury deliberated for only 30 minutes on this case, there are only 2 options:

1. You had 12 completely fraudulent jurors that cared about nothing but getting a player out of trouble

In ND on B misdemeanors (like most 1st offense DUI's) there are only 6 jurors. DUI trials should be pretty open and shut when there is a valid chemical test like there was here. The defense did not have an expert, so the defense lawyer must have done a very good job blasting the Intoxilyzer and the field sobriety tests.

[xI Hammer Ix]

Any way you slice the bread, he seems to have his head screwed on straight now, and it's great having him back.

[dagies]

true, but I am more liable to believe that it was the second option. Just because looking at the evidence brought forth, I can find ways to argue not guilty and I have had no legal training whatsoever. A person with legal experience would be even better.

Just to be clear, we're on the same page here.

[dagies]

In ND on B misdemeanors (like most 1st offense DUI's) there are only 6 jurors. DUI trials should be pretty open and shut when there is a valid chemical test like there was here. The defense did not have an expert, so the defense lawyer must have done a very good job blasting the Intoxilyzer and the field sobriety tests.

Gotcha. I think my premise would still hold that even with 6 jurors, if only 1 was arguing a different point of view from the other 5 this would have lasted longer than 30 minutes. Therefore we agree that this most likely hinged on the defense completely blowing up the prosecution's case.

Chris might want to think this was a jury who wanted to fraudulently let a hockey player go. With the quick verdict I'm fairly convinced this was about evidence, not ethics. It takes 30 minutes just to get 1 person to be the foreman.

If this was a mafia related trial I might be more inclined to think someone got to the jury. I highly doubt Hakstol sicced MacWilliam or Davidson on the jury.

Besides, everyone knows tDon is in Minneapolis, not North Dakota.

[NDFlyer]

DUI trials should be pretty open and shut when there is a valid chemical test like there was here. The defense did not have an expert, so the defense lawyer must have done a very good job blasting the Intoxilyzer and the field sobriety tests.

This is basically what happened.

[Detroit87]

Why would someone come back from Canada for a DUI trial if they might get found guilty? They wouldn't because it would screw up travelling over the border forever. Remember folks Canada does not like to let in Americans with a DUI on their record. The fix was in from the start. If he had not come back for this semester when would the trial have been held then? Never? What if he had killed someone driving drunk would he still be all of your hero? Probably on this board.

[LuvHockey]

Heard about this from a conversation with a friend recently (second hand info- consider that):

He stated that if you were willing to risk the "go to trial" option for DUI, you have a chance to get out of the charge due to the fact that the ND state toxicology lab is the single place the legal testing is done, and the lab is not staffed with enough techs to have every DUI case attended by Bismarck employee (at state expense too) and still do all the rest of the labs work.

So, you gamble that the tech will not be allowed to attend the trial, thus "no expert produced" and blood alcohol level (most accurate) thus not admissable.

Then the attorney blasts the field/breath tests, and voila- not able to determine guilt.

Would not try this if I lived in Bismarck.....

[brianvf]

Why would someone come back from Canada for a DUI trial if they might get found guilty? They wouldn't because it would screw up travelling over the border forever. Remember folks Canada does not like to let in Americans with a DUI on their record. The fix was in from the start. If he had not come back for this semester when would the trial have been held then? Never? What if he had killed someone driving drunk would he still be all of your hero? Probably on this board.

?

[siouxforce19]

Why would someone come back from Canada for a DUI trial if they might get found guilty? They wouldn't because it would screw up travelling over the border forever. Remember folks Canada does not like to let in Americans with a DUI on their record. The fix was in from the start. If he had not come back for this semester when would the trial have been held then? Never? What if he had killed someone driving drunk would he still be all of your hero? Probably on this board.

Um... this makes no sense. First of all, the trial was set WAY before it was decided Matt would be back this semester. THe trial date was set back in November. (it was in the Herald if you question that) Secondly, I'm aware that Canada does not let Americans across the border by car. (they can fly you know) However, I have a hard time believing the same law applies to Canadian citizens like Matt.