Matt Roloff, patriarch to the Roloff family of the very popular TLC reality show Little People, Big World, was found not guilty of Driving Under the Influence by a Washington County, Oregon judge. He made this decision even though it was a jury trial. You see, a few of the jury members got into a bit of trouble. But first, more about Matt.
Back on June 19th of last year the 46-year-old Roloff was pulled over after a sheriff's deputy saw his van leaving a bar and weaving over lane lines. During testimony last week Roloff mentioned that he was only dropping off a friend at the bar and never left his car. He also testified that he was tired from a cross-country RV trip he took with his family and that the pedal extensions on the van he was driving (it was his wife Amy's van) were different than what he was used to.
The verdict was given by Circuit Judge Donald R. Letourneau rather than the jurors because a few members did not heed instructions to not look up any information about the case. Two of the jurors looked up definitions of "implied consent" and "beyond a reasonable doubt" on the Internet. In addition, one of those two looked up information about the eye test that deputies say Roloff failed twice the night he was pulled over. After chastising the jury about disobeying the law, Judge Letourneau dismissed the panel and gave the verdict on his own.
Despite Roloff's acquittal, he still isn't scott free. Under Oregon's "implied consent" law, Matt's driver's license was suspended for three years because he refused to take a breath test after his June arrest and had gone through a previous drunken-driving diversion program within the past five years. At this point in time, he cannot get his license back any sooner.
On the Roloff Farms website, Matt thanked his fans for their support and encouragement over the last few months and that his top priority is to spend time with his family. He also says that in the coming months he'll be able to share more about what happened during the arrest as well as everything leading up to the trial.
TV Squad previews NBC's new shows (part 1)
TV 101: How ESPN controls the world and what the other networks can learn from it
TV Squad previews CBS's new shows
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
1-14-2008 @ 9:10AM
sitruc said...
I wish he were found not guilty because he was innocent. I have little respect for people who drive under the influence. At least he won't be on the road for at least three years....
Reply
4-06-2008 @ 12:07AM
TMAN said...
I actually like watching the show but I do have a problem with the episode where he is trying to beat the DUI charge. I find it hypocritical when the family is praying to God for help to get them through Matt's DUI ordeal. He KNEW he had alcohol in his system that's the reason he refused to take the breathalizer test. I feel the family is being dishonest knowing that he did have alcohol in his system and pretending that its something with peddles of the car. I'm not buying it if I was a juror. Plus the fact that he has a previous DUI charge which was barely mentioned in that episode. I'm not faulting him, thats his choice to go to trial and try to beat it but I actually lost respect for him after that episode I feel that he is trying to put one over the viewers of the show. I will no longer watch the show.
1-14-2008 @ 10:42AM
Oreo said...
I don't understand why the jury got in trouble for looking up "implied consent", shouldn't someone tell them what the hell that means?
And maybe he didn't do anything wrong, the judge still could have found him guilty.
Reply
1-14-2008 @ 11:39AM
BStu said...
The judge tells them what it means. Not Wikipedia. Or worse, a site which defines the term to suit their own agenda. If a juror has a question, those questions can be directed to the judge who offers a definition after consulting with both the prosecutors and the defense. It protects everyone's rights by preventing extra-legal definitions and understandings from being a part of the proceedings.
1-14-2008 @ 11:53AM
C C said...
I've lived in the Portland, Oregon metro area for most of my life and let's just say I'm very familiar with how the law works in suburban Washington County.The cops, lawyers, judges are all wacko. People close to me can tell you stories about all the "irregularities" that occured while they were in court. A relative of mine was sexually harassed by a cop when she was pulled over for a non-existant traffic violation. And the court once "lost" a filing my family had made. The Roloff case is, unfortunately, typical of what happens there.
Reply
1-14-2008 @ 9:33PM
kmb2510 said...
I am glad Matt was found not guilty. The lessen he should learn from this is to not drive a vehicle that is not equipped for him. Even though not guilty of DUI, if he truly had trouble driving, then he could have gotten into an accident and hurt himself or, worse yet, others. He has a vehicle equipped for himself and it is that vehicle that he should drive, that is, when he can again. Three years is an awfully long time to be without a license if he was found not guilty. But, he knew the law when he refused to take the test. So beit.
Reply
2-03-2008 @ 4:14AM
Lisa Milliken said...
I'm not so sure that Matt hadn't had a little something, whether at his previous location or at the bar itself, contrary to his story...
Let's be honest: he is an alcoholic.
He has been caught before behind the wheel while intoxicated. And for every time an alcoholic actually gets caught committing a DUI, (s)he almost certainly has done the same thing many times before.
I am disabled, too, though with different health problems than Matt Roloff's. It's not hard to understand how someone for whom life has forced many unpleasant compromises could feel a sense of entitlement to grab onto as much as they can out of life.
But driving while drunk or impaired in any other way is so risky that it's simply unacceptable -- for anybody!
Reply
2-03-2008 @ 4:21AM
Lisa2 said...
111
Reply
2-13-2008 @ 2:41AM
JANEEN said...
I AGREE IM GLAD HE WAS CLEARED OF DUI BUT YOU LEARNED A HUGE LESSON NOW YOUR SONS AND WIFE CAN DRIVE YOU AROUND AND I HOPE YOU LEARN FROM YOUR MISTAKE AND DONT TAKE IT LIGHLY.
Reply
2-18-2008 @ 11:02PM
Lil said...
I bet if the situation was reversed and all of the negative posts were switched with Matt, you would be screaming if someone critizied you in the same way you are doing him. "IF" he is an alcholic, then he is battling an unseen enemy everyday. If he isn't you should feel really big by now. I have watched his show since it has been on and he shows me that he is a loving, caring, giving and devoted husband and father. My father was and alcholic and I saw what battles he fought and what pushed him to drink. I sincerely doubt with all my heart that Matt is not doing exactly what he should to his ability. Give the man a break and just watch the show.
Reply
2-19-2008 @ 3:48PM
Russ said...
Mat got totally screwed.These friggen cops should be out arresting drug dealears and not bothering a nice guy like mat.Good luck mat Im pluggen for you buddy. Russ
Reply
2-25-2008 @ 1:53AM
Melissa said...
if he really did get a DUI, was a breath-a-liser performed? if so, and it came back that he didn't have anything in his system then he is innocent. but why the whole "going to court"
Reply
2-25-2008 @ 10:12AM
shelly said...
He refused the breathalizer. That automatically gets you 3 years w/o a license. And it went to court because he wanted to fight his driving under influence charge.
I haven't heard if there was any smell of alcohol though....
3-04-2008 @ 7:24AM
Lynda Flackman said...
He refused the test
2-26-2008 @ 7:30PM
Anita Wptte said...
I love the fact that the Roloff's are depicting how a family should be. Whatever happened to that type of goodness and well rounded family environment in general? I knew that Matt was innocent of that DUI. Anyone that well put together is not going to hang out at a bar and then drive. People get a clue. I love this show, because it takes me back to a place and time of how families used to be. Amy is way cool and tons more of how a woman should conduct herself as a parent, person, friend , and woman. It hyas nothing to do with being little. It has to do with inner integrity and self respect, and honesty. I like having people like the Roloff's in my life. I respect them.
Reply
3-21-2008 @ 9:59PM
lhill59 said...
You need to "get a clue."
If Matt had nothing to hide, then why did he refuse to have his breath tested for alcohol?
Matt's ego is TWICE his size. I don't watch the show any longer as I grew tired of his self boasting during EVERY episode.
It makes me sick to see him beat this charge.
2-29-2008 @ 4:25PM
Ron said...
I love people who blame the police for Matt's situation.
"The police should be arresting real criminals..." As a police officer, I'd like to share that it is very satisfying to remove someone from the road that is intoxicated.
You quickly realize this after the first time you have to wake someone up a 12:00am to inform them that they'll never see their 17-year-old daughter again because she was just killed by a drunk driver while driving home from school after returning from an away game.
Or arriving at an accident scene where a 10-year-old boy had just been killed instantly after being hit by a drunk driver while the 10-year-old was riding his bicycle in front of his own house at 5:00 in the afternoon. And then watch as family members try to convince his mother to let his lifeless body go so he can be taken to the funeral home.
That being said, I'd say drunk driving is one of the most serious crimes I can think of.
Reply
3-03-2008 @ 8:50PM
Alexandra said...
If he was truly innocent then why, prey tell, did he refuse a Breathalyzer? Someone who's innocent and has no fear of being deemed 'under the influence' would not refuse a screening test that would all but clear them. That being said, I think it's very sad that anyone would use their disability as a defence, that's low.
And to the Einstein who said that law enforcement should be out there dealing with drug dealers and 'real criminals' - you are naive and ignorant. Obviously your life has never been touched by the innocent loss of life at the hands of a Drunk Driver. Since when is it not a crime to take someone's life? If you truly are this ignorant, perhaps you should back away from your TV and go speak with someone at Mothers Against Drunk Driving; talk to the family members of those who've had loved ones killed because of a drunk driver.
3-03-2008 @ 8:46PM
Sara said...
Okay, so sometimes law enforcement is not fair. However, apparently Matt has had one other DUI incident. If, in fact, he was not intoxicated this time, then why didn't he just take the damn breathalizer? It seems to me he had something to hide. It's lucky for him that there were some issues with the trial, because I think--even with his extensive "research"--he would have been cited. TV star or not, Matt needs to be honest with himself at least.
Reply
3-03-2008 @ 8:51PM
Spencer said...
He did nothing wrong Im currently watching the show.... and the jury problems gosh!!
Reply