While I can be a very compassionate defense lawyer, some guys have real huts-pa. After killing a women in a DWI related accident, Jim Leyritz was order to install an ignition interlock in his vehicle as a condition of his bail. The NY Post is reporting that Leyritz filed an application with the Court to remove the interlock because valets had problems driving his car and there were false positive readings if Leyritz ate certain foods like chicken marsala.
Am I missing something here? I sincerely hope that the report was incomplete or inaccurate because, otherwise, Leyritz needs to get his head examined. You are about to go on trial for killing a women and you have your attorney file a motion like this — the inflammatory nature of the application is immeasurable. You need only review some of the comments to the article and it is immediately apparent just how explosive this is going to become. Now you are going to have a family that is only more incensed. Media and the like who are going to have absolutely no compassion for Leyritz. Lastly, what message is it sending to the court that may oversee the trial or sentencing of Leyritz? This move would not have been one I made defending someone in a similar situation in New Jersey. Perhaps I am just missing a piece of the pie.