You are viewing this article in the archives. For the latest breaking news and updates in Ann Arbor and the surrounding area, see
Posted on Fri, May 20, 2011 : 10:04 a.m.

Michigan football player accused of drunken driving to return to court next month for evidentiary hearing

By Lee Higgins

Darryl Stonum, the Michigan wide receiver who has been accused of drunken driving, made a brief appearance this morning in 15th District Court, where his attorney said there is a question as to why Stonum was initially stopped by police.

In an attempt to resolve that question, attorney Doug Lewis requested an evidentiary hearing, which Judge Julie Creal set for June 3 at 9 a.m. Lewis did not elaborate on what concern he had about the traffic stop.


Darryl Stonum

Stonum pleaded not guilty last week to charges of operating while intoxicated second-offense and driving with a suspended license.

The 21-year-old, who has been suspended from the team, was arrested at 2:25 a.m. on May 6 by University of Michigan police after a traffic stop on State Street, records show.

Stonum, who is from Stafford, Texas, and is entering his senior year with the Michigan football program, faces up to a year in jail if convicted.

It's not the first time he's been in legal trouble. In September 2008, during his freshman year, police charged him with operating a vehicle while visibly impaired, and he was subsequently jailed for three nights in July 2010 for multiple probation violations.

He is currently out on a $500 personal recognizance bond and must submit to a breath test each day by 8:30 a.m. at the University of Michigan Department of Public Safety.

Lee Higgins covers crime and courts for He can be reached by phone at (734) 623-2527 and email at


Blu n Tpa

Sat, May 21, 2011 : 12:39 p.m.

I think that Coach Hoke is taking this as DS's first transgression while under his control and under his rules, which it is. The court system views this differently, which is also exactly correct. Here are the deal breakers: Was this a legal stop, does the evidence warrant going to trial, and is there a better than average chance of getting a conviction? If any of those are answered "no' then the Judge has to save the taxpayers and DS the expense of going to trial. Remember, it could all go DS's way and Coach Hoke could still bid this player 'goodbye'. In Hoke I trust! TiM Go Blue!


Sat, May 21, 2011 : 2:56 a.m.

Oh how times have changed, in 1989 Sean Higgins went through the rigamarole of a DUI conviction and won a national championship, and nobody was the wiser.

Are you serious?

Sat, May 21, 2011 : 1:02 a.m.

@kafkaland Having an evidentiary hearing has nothing to do with trying to buy some time for a better plea bargain. It is the defendant's due process right to challenge the prosecution's evidence. It happens all the time and entirely. You are correct that the defendant rarely wins at the hearing, but it does happen sometimes when there is something done improperly during the entire process. @trespass This judge does not take things out on defendants for an attorney being late.

1st Down

Fri, May 20, 2011 : 10:46 p.m.

"Wahts da problem occifer?" Its good that the hard work and training with Barwis, may have finally paid off for Stonum in the form of walking the line toe to toe and touching his noise with his eyes closed.


Fri, May 20, 2011 : 7:17 p.m.

This is most likely another attempt to buy some time for a better plea bargain. Attempts to claim that the underlying traffic stop is illegal almost always fail, as an officer's statement that the driver was driving erratically, forgot to signal, or almost hit someone or something are next to impossible to disprove, unless the dash cam has everything recorded under a perfect angle. And the fact that he did have alcohol in his blood (how much - does anyone know if he falls under the new 'superdrunk' law?) makes it just the more likely that there was some reason in his behavior that warranted the traffic stop. Sometimes a defendant might also hope that the arresting officer fails to show up for the hearing, but that's exceedingly unlikely in this case. UM police is quite conscientious about showing up in court, and can anyone imagine the public reaction if UM DPS deliberately sabotaged a criminal case against a star football player by not showing up? Finally, since someone asked: court-ordered daily breath tests at the next police station are very common in 'sobriety court' cases - and that's the docket this is on. No special treatment for him here, one way or another.


Fri, May 20, 2011 : 7:04 p.m.

Mr. Stonum's attorney, Doug Lewis, was 45 minutes late to court because he forgot about the court date. The judge was not happy. Is this what students can expect from the Director of Student Legal Services? Mr. Stonum is lucky that the judge said she would not take it out on Mr. Stonum.

Blu n Tpa

Fri, May 20, 2011 : 6:50 p.m.

There's more to this and it will come out. Im thankful that there a legal system still in place and you guys don't run it. Coach Hoke's on it so try not to get ahead of facts.

Roy Munson

Fri, May 20, 2011 : 7:35 p.m.

I would like to agree with you. But since this is not strike 1, or even strike 2, I can't. Hoke, just get rid of this guy!

Roy Munson

Fri, May 20, 2011 : 6:18 p.m.

Hoke, make this headline read "FORMER Michigan Football Player." Please don't be like Dantonio. UM doesn't need to install the Prison Cell to Field Transition Program like they have over there.

Tom Joad

Fri, May 20, 2011 : 6:17 p.m.

Is the breath test contingent upon his continued place on the team? This type of scrutiny sounds unheard of to the general public. A second drunk driving conviction would be the death knell of any career of substance.


Fri, May 20, 2011 : 3:57 p.m.

Does the fact that he is questioning getting pulled over by the police change if he was or was not drinking and driving?


Fri, May 20, 2011 : 4:23 p.m.

Well while it does not change if he was drunk or not, the police must have probable cause to stop someone. If they didn't have probable cause to pull him over then the entire arrest is subject to scrutiny

Bertha Venation

Fri, May 20, 2011 : 3:50 p.m.

Step aside, boys.... Judge Bertha's in the court...