Reader comments
DUI felon bails out of jail to fix his broken teeth
4 comments | Read story
Get today's headlines via email
Good morning edition
Deseret News Family Deals
In News
Across Site
- Colliding causes: Gay rights and...
- Woman charged in Rasmussen death...
- Photos: Salt Lake Main Library...
- Powells, Coxes put differences aside...
- Amendments to gutted sex education...
- Requests to alter online news...
- Salt Lake City celebrates 2002...
- 'Wicked' tickets on sale May 11
- Sweethearts in real life also share...
- Despite data, Lyme disease sufferers...
In News
Across Site
- Powells, Coxes put differences aside...
- Colliding causes: Gay rights and...
- View live stream of services for...
- Focus returns to Powell children today
- Battling misconceptions: Faced with...
- Father-in-law dragged deeper into...
- Committee will explore new '22...
- Josh Powell had 'incestuous' images...
- LDS bishop ordered to stand trial for...
- Romney's 'Horrible Tuesday' signals...
In News
Across Site
- Prop. 8 declared unconstitutional
181 - LDS Church, others respond to Prop 8
88 - Gay rights and religious liberty
57 - Families at odds over Powell's actions
54 - LDS bishop ordered to stand trial
41 - Utah House blocks Sandstrom bill
39 - Powell call:'I'm afraid for their lives'
33 - Photos: Year of the Dragon
26 - Bill would cut auto safety checks
24 - Should SLC bid again for Olympics?
23







However, with 7 convictions for DUI I would say that he has had multiple chances. It's too bad that he has to be in jail now but those are choices he made.
And if I read the article right, his driving while impaired caused someone their life. Mr. VanDyke is a prime candidate for a DUI registry. I certainly would like to know who he is for my family's safety.
And he'll probably LOSE those new teeth there, so......
When I found out about his record after the trial I was infuriated that the jury was not allowed to know this information because we very easily could have passed the wrong verdict. At the beginning of deliberations, I think the majority thought was that the case was not strong enough, but after careful consideration of all evidence and two hours of discussion the consensus changed to guilty.