ShareThis Page
Home

'Citizen of God' gets DUI conviction, fine

| Friday, Dec. 6, 2002

A Moon Township man who had claimed he was "a citizen of God" and said the courts lacked jurisdiction over him was convicted Thursday by an Allegheny County jury of drunken driving.

The jury of seven women and five men deliberated about one hour before convicting Richard Grossi, 57, of driving under the influence of alcohol on May 6, 2001, in Moon.

Common Pleas Judge David R. Cashman sentenced Grossi, who has been incarcerated for almost one year, to time served and paroled him immediately.

The judge also placed Grossi on one year probation, and fined him $300. The defendant must attend safe driving school and submit to alcohol evaluation.

Grossi, a boilermaker and father of three, said he wanted to appeal his conviction because his court-appointed attorney, Erika Kreisman, didn't have time to prepare his defense. He had fired another court-appointed counsel last week and asked for Kreisman.

Moon Township police Officer Shener R. Ulke, who stopped Grossi after seeing him strike a curb and swerve three times onto the berm, testified the defendant smelled of alcohol, had slurred speech and bloodshot eyes.

Grossi refused to cooperate with field sobriety tests or have blood drawn, and answered questions by saying, "Woof. Woof."

Assistant District Attorney Brent McCune told the jury that Grossi "stonewalled the truth" by his actions. He urged the jury not "to let that happen."

Kreisman claimed that Grossi's behavior could have had other explanations, including that the defendant was tired or mentally ill.

Grossi had been committed to Mayview State Hospital in South Fayette Township for an evaluation, but the results weren't presented to the jury. He was ruled competent to stand trial.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me