World Series Hero Accoused Of Killing Woman In DUI Crash
Fort Lauderdale, FL – In Session has some new developments from a Florida case where a one time World Series hero is facing DUI manslaughter charges.
Back in December of 2007, former New York Yankee catcher Jim Leyritz was celebrating his 44th birthday in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. After Leyrtiz left the alleged alcohol-fueled celebration, prosecutors say he got behind the wheel of his SUV and drove through a red light, smashing his car into Fredia Veitch, a 30-year-old mother of two. She died in the crash. And it was later determined that Leyritz had a blood-alcohol level of .14 percent. The legal limit in Florida is .08.
Now before you place your bet on a verdict, court records have revealed that Veitch was also intoxicated; her blood showed a .18 percent alcohol content. We also know that the defense will try to prove that Veitch was speeding, not wearing a seatbelt, didn’t have her headlights on and was distracted by her cell phone around the time of the crash. Another key issue is whether Leyritz even ran a red light – the defense argues that the light was actually yellow.
FL v. Leyritz will focus, in large part, on the seconds before, during, and after that fatal accident. We’ll hear from reconstruction experts who will attempt to recreate the events, including the speed of each car. We’ll also hear from several witnesses and sort through a pile of evidence.
So where does the case stand today?
The attorneys have been going back and forth, arguing over all sorts of potential evidence. Last Thursday, attorneys argued over whether surveillance video allegedly showing the victim’s car should be admitted into trial – they even questioned the police officer who gathered that tape.
But earlier Wednesday morning, In Session field producer Grace Wong reported that the Leyritz team had a small victory, so to speak. On Monday, the court will hear evidence that the defense’s case has been hurt by exculpatory evidence that the State inadvertently or intentionally withheld until the eve of the trial. The State argued today that the defense isn’t entitled to such a hearing because although a discovery violation was indeed committed, it happened before the trial ever started.
