Secrets of the City

He got off easy.

Making accusations about police brutality leads to harsher sentences? Scary indeed.

@Jonathan: I’m not quite so sure about “police brutality” if a suspect of Eller’s physical stature resists arrest. Seems to me the smart thing to do is obey, then plead your case in court. Eller ain’t no Rodney King.

Carl Eller is tiny, dude.

6′6″ is tiny?

He’s not 6′6″ anymore. I doubt he’s 270 lbs any more either.

I saw him at a restaurant a couple weeks ago, and he couldn’t be any bigger than myself.

I never said he was brutalized, but if a suspect think he was some how wronged by law enforcement does he not have the right to bring it up? Should a suspect have to choose between a harsh sentence and a fair trial?

It’s interesting. You don’t have a right to disrupt a court, but you certainly have the right to blast the court outside its doors.

I give this judge credit for being honest. He could have just sentenced Eller and blamed it on the crime. But: by being honest, I’d think there’s a good chance it’ll be sent to another judge for re-sentencing.

Is two months harsh? Even 4 months doesn’t seem too harsh for assaulting a cop, resisting arrest, drunk driving.

The issue seems to be whether he should have been taken into custody right then, or allowed a day or whatever to “get his affairs” in order.

Both procedures are used, but it should be based on the severity of the crime and the potential for flight, not because of criticism of the court (with probable exceptions for court room outbursts/violations of court orders that could amount to contempt of court).

Yes, it’s fair.

Can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.

I also find it interesting that someone who drove drunk, then resisted arrest, and threatened to kill another human being is attempting to play the victim.

Narcissism at its best.

Two months in The Hole would be harsh for The Rat. That’s hard time, for someone who has been free all their life and used to a pretty privileged life. Hope he learns something.

I wouldn’t classify a workhouse as “hard time,” Rat.

Can’t be easy when you’re 67.

I don’t know anything about Carl Eller or what kind of person he is. But I know that any schadenfreude anyone feels because he was a jock is unseemly.

Well, if he was strong enough to manhandle a police officer half his age, I’m sure he’s up to the task of washing dishes or serving meals at the mission.

Well, I’m certainly not one of those gloating about the situation, but, really, what did he expect would happen from his behavior (and by behavior, I mean alcoholism)? Some lessons need to be learned the hard way.

And really, if this had been any average person, do you think the judge would have sentenced him to 2 months in a workhouse? Not sure, but I’m leaning on the side of real jail time.

You are missing the point alie. He deserves to be sentenced for drunk driving. But should his sentence be harsher because he decided to use his right of free speech?

So, it was harsher because the judge wouldn’t let him go home for 24 hours before going to the workhouse? It was my impression that after you were sentenced, you went straight to jail, and hasn’t he been out on bond all this time? What sentence would have been appropriate to Mr. Eller. House arrest? Jail time for drunk driving and mouthing off to the judge may or may not be appropriate, but it certainly is for assault and making terroristic threats. Like I said before, can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.

@Jonathan: Free speech is not absolute, though. If you criticize a judge in his courtroom, you can be held in contempt.

But, really, if it took backup to subdue Eller, he wasn’t playing nice in the first place.

It wasn’t me who said the sentence was harsher, it was the judge.

noodleman: if he mouthed off in court, then he should be held in contempt.

If the typical procedure was that a person would be allowed to self report in 24 hours, yes, it was harsher, Alie.

Noodleman, The criticisms were outside of court, as I understand it, so unless he was violating some kind of gag order, I think the judge was out of line.

I guess I look at it from the aspect of not being in the public eye. If he had a legitimate beef about the court and the police, why didn’t he take it through the proper channels, rather than whining all over the TV? Those kinds of unsubstantiated comments have the possibility of ruining careers.

And maybe I’m just a hard ass, but I fail to see what’s so “harsh” about having to go straight to jail (or wherever) after sentencing. Seems like a given to me.

Even the prosecutors were only asking for 60 days of in-home detention (house arrest). So the judge went way beyond what prosecutors asked– and he specifically said it was because of what Eller said about the court. It was to “send a message.”

And he didn’t mouth off in court. The judge said that Eller used his access to the media to spread misinformation about the court and police. I have a nice summary at my blog, linked above

Police brutality and flawed trials can end lives. A few bruised egos of judges and cops is a small price to pay for free speech.

So, you’re saying slander and libel are ok as long as it’s couched in free speech? You may want to talk to a lawyer about that.

Furthermore, unsubstantiated claims of brutality and corrupt courts do nothing but diminish real cases of police misconduct.

Seems that the accusations regarding the trial process were anything but unsubstantiated.

If a judge or lawyer feels they were slandered then perhaps they should pursue the proper legal remodies.

From what I understand, Mr. Eller was complaining of the corrupt court before he was even sentenced…

And it looks like he was right.

Why, because he practically dared the court? So, if things aren’t going your way in the legal system, you should be able to use the bully pulpit of the media to get your way? Sounds like a lose-lose situation to me.

Absolutely. You should be able to use whatever rights you have to defend yourself.

Don’t make me dig up a list of people who have used the “bully pulpit of the media” to point out flaws in the legal system.

I dunno, I just can’t get behind his claims of being treated unfairly. He was convicted last spring and he’s crying about not having another 24 hours to get his affairs in order? What was he doing all year that another 24 hours would have been useful?

And filing a lawsuit doesn’t necessarily substantiate anything.

If Carl Eller was so sure that his rights were violated, why doesn’t he file a lawsuit? Perhaps it is easier for him to just use the media to make accusations then it is for him to actually have to prove anything in a court of law.

Further, you have to prove malice in a slander trial. This is a hard thing to accomplish.

I hope this is rock bottom for Carl so he gets the help he needs. I doubt it. From the sound of it, he does not believe he did anything wrong. It’s sad.

Douglas, I guess he has filed a federal lawsuit, but that’s about all there is about it.

The sad spectacle of the 67-year-old former Purple People Eater trying (in vain) to shield himself from justice behind his mother in court was pathetic.

Carl Eller’s legal and personal problems always draws unfavoarable comparisons to his former teammate, the Honerable Alan Page.

The Strib has a more-detailed article of the incidents now online.

I’m no great fan of the MPD (no personal squabbles, though) but it seems to be contorted logic to give Eller the right to “prosecute” his claim via the media rather than having to present his argument and evidence in a courtroom.

Or have we forgotten all the other times we’ve complained about someone being “convicted” in the media before they’ve had their day in court?

I just see this issue really being about free speech or a court abusing a person’s right to free speech under threat of detention.

Correction: I just DON’T see this issue really being about free speech …

When I was a kid, and I did something wrong, I didn’t whine to my mom about how her system of punishment is unfair. I kissed up. That’s the SMART course of action.

But for Carl Eller to get a more severe penalty than prosecutors asked for– not because the judge hated his crime– but because the judge hated his outside-the-court speech, is worth questioning.

Jason, you obviously understood that you could’ve compounded your punishment by questioning your mother’s “justice system.” How different is that from what happened to Eller?

The irony, of course, is depending upon the justice system to right a grievance when the grievance is with the justice system itself.

And I still think 6′6″ 270-pounds is not “tiny.”

I don’t think Jason’s mom’s system had a constitution. If it did though, that is certainly worthy of a 5 minute story on a Friday night.

My constitution today is slightly stuffy-headed and drowsy.

“But for Carl Eller to get a more severe penalty than prosecutors asked for– not because the judge hated his crime– but because the judge hated his outside-the-court speech, is worth questioning.”

While I agree in part (I think the judge probably made a mistake in couching his sentence in the terms of Eller’s public statement), but, if Eller really wanted leniency, wouldn’t voicing your negative opinions of the justice system be construed as having little to no remorse for what you have done? It’s my opinion that if you’re asking for mercy, well, ask for it respectfully. Stating you deserve a less severe punishment based on assertions that have not yet been proven in a court of law is presumptuous at best.