Apparently Darryl Stonum spent some time in jail

Submitted by me on July 21st, 2010 at 8:42 AM

At least according to Mark Snyder and the Freep



Darryl Stonum, a projected starting receiver and U-M's primary kickoff returner, spent three nights in jail last month, according to Washtenaw County court records.

The junior from Stafford, Texas, was sentenced in 15th District Court in Ann Arbor and spent June 4-7 in Washtenaw County jail for probation violations.


The probation was related to the DUI he received a couple years back.


These were the violations:


From May 15, 2009, through June 1, 2010, according to court records, he committed probation violations such as leaving the state without consent, failing to submit to random alcohol testing nine times in a 63-day span, failing to complete additional alcohol testing and failing to report for probation on multiple occasions.


Here's the rest of the article if you're so inclined…



July 21st, 2010 at 12:44 PM ^

Sounds like the right solution. (It always amazed me that whenever it was reported that players were running steps at 5:30 in the morning, it was also reported that Coach Carr was out there checking up on them at that ungodly hour. Wonder if RR will do the same?)

They need to put a flight of steps in back of the new press boxes/club seating structures just to give them that extra distance to run.


July 21st, 2010 at 9:23 AM ^

We could really use Stonum this year. Hopefully he straightens all this out and gets his head back in the game. No reason to throw everything away like this.


July 21st, 2010 at 9:24 AM ^

but by no means a disaster for the program.  This is a "college athlete does something stupid" story, not a "college athlete commits terrible crime" story or a "team X found cheating" story...If Big Ten teams couldn't field guys who have had scrapes with the law, Penn St. and Iowa would have had about twenty scholarship players each the last couple of years. 


July 21st, 2010 at 9:26 AM ^

I was pulling for him to be the next to wear the #1 jersey. Now, not so much. Hopefully he figures it all out. He has as much potential as any other receiver on the roster right now.


July 21st, 2010 at 1:41 PM ^

He probably won't get it, but I would love to see Odoms in the #1 because of they way he plays. He blocks really well, which a lot of receivers don't want to do. There was the strectch where he dropped some balls but he does what he does well.

If nothing else, we at least seem to have competition for the jersey.


July 21st, 2010 at 9:31 AM ^

"At the time, the Michigan Daily cited a police report stating that Stonum, then 18, blew a 0.10 on a Breathalyzer, above the 0.02 limit for a minor to drive."

I thought the limit for a minor to drive was 0.00?

Goddamn Freep...


July 21st, 2010 at 9:36 AM ^

I'm not saying he should be kicked off the team, but a DUI is not an MIP.  Every college kids drinks.  Many get MIPs.  Very, very few get DUIs.  I'm surprised some people are brushing this off like it's no big deal.

Then add to the fact that he failed to report for drug tests nine times?  That's bad. 


July 21st, 2010 at 9:38 AM ^

The pull quotes are misleading. Stonum has already been punished by RR for the DUI. He sat out a game last season. So, that is done.

The new infraction, and the one he went to jail for, is not fulfilling the terms of his probation. There may be some new punishment from RR for that. We don't know.


July 21st, 2010 at 10:25 AM ^

That's a good clarification.  I didn't mean to say that Stonum should be punished for the DUI - that's in the past and has been done.  But some people above are brushing off the DUI like it's not a big deal.  And when you add it to the parole violations, it's a definite pattern that should probably lead to missed time on the field (and not just running steps).

03 Blue 07

July 21st, 2010 at 11:08 AM ^

Doesn't it seem like he went home for the summer or went on some trips, which violated his probation? 9x in 63 days: let's say he went back to TX for a week or 10 days or something, and his probation people figured this out and called him every day he was gone, and then he randomly missed one 2 months later or 2 months prior? And the fact that one of the charges is leaving the state without permission. . . makes me think a scenario like this took place.

Regardless, it's a bonehead move on his part, and it's obviously not like he said to the coaching staff, "hey, guys, I'm on probation, but I'm gonna head to TX for 4th of July and a week after. Make sure no one misses me."  All in all, though, irresponsible by him. And as for the stadium steps, they can/should be "voluntary." Just like they were for Joppru, Braylon, et. al. That rule, to my knowledge, hasn't changed; there has to be a way to do it within the rules. Perhaps the "punishment" that we were meting out during the summers past that went over the "mandatory" 10 hour-per-week summer max were some sort of group conditioning sessions or something. There's GOT to be a way to make him run stadium stairs at 6 am or something without running afoul of NCAA rules.


July 21st, 2010 at 9:40 AM ^

That he "failed to submit to random piss tests nine times in 63 days" could mean that:

a) he missed 9 piss tests in 63 days, OR

b) he was required to appear for 9 piss tests over a 63 day span (i.e. one per week), and failed to reach the required total of 9.  That could theoretically mean that he missed one test.

I don't know the procedure for post-DUI probation... anyone have an idea of which of these two is more likely?

919 Brown

July 21st, 2010 at 1:17 PM ^

It's most likely he was required to submit to alcohol testing X many times per week, like Monday, Wednesday, Friday by 9:00 am. Or he may have been required to submit to random alcohol testing, where he's assigned a color or a number that designates testing frequenct/report days and times. The color or number would randomally be called throughtout the week and the responsibility would fall on the offender to find out if they have to report, usually by calling in to some type of automated announcement.

I'm not sure how Washtenaw County operates, but misdemeanor probation usually requires minimal supervision and testing requirements. So in all likelihood Mr. Stonum missed a total of 9 random/scheduled tests over a 63-day period. And he was most likely only required to meet with his probation officer one-time per month, which he also failed to do on several occasions.







July 21st, 2010 at 1:55 PM ^

Yeah, I was wondering about that, too.  There's definitely a key distinction there.  If he reported eight of the nine times and just forgot the other time, then this is just an unfortunate situation (but the law's the law, so he can't really complain).  If he never reported, or only did a couple of times, he has no excuse and deserves punishment. 


July 21st, 2010 at 9:43 AM ^

Not many people know the name, but he was on his way to work one day as a teacher in Grand Rapids, when he was killed instantly by a drunk driver going the wrong way on the highway with no lights on.  There is a Memorial golf tournament in Perry Michigan to raise funds for his wife to support their only child on July 31st.  I have donated 4 tickets to the Bowling Green game as an item for the silent auction.   Aaron was a big Michigan fan.

I know Stonum didn't kill anyone, but it is time we took drinking and driving seriously.  I would at the very least like to see him run stairs for a few weeks. 




July 21st, 2010 at 12:07 PM ^

Stonum has already been punished by RR for the DUI. He sat out a game last season. So, that is done. The new infraction, and the one he went to jail for, is not fulfilling the terms of his probation. There may be some new punishment from RR for that. We don't know.

While we all are in agreement that drinking and driving is a very serious offense and my sympathies are with the family and friends of Aaron Haynes, the reality is that Stonum has already been punished by Rodriguez for the DUI. I believe that he should be further punished for his probation violation, but a firm distinction needs to be made between the DUI that occurred several years ago and the more recent probation violation.

A failure to punish Stonum, hypothetically, wouldn't reflect that anyone is not taking drinking and driving seriously; rather, it would reflect how seriously the probation violations are taken.


July 21st, 2010 at 1:36 PM ^

while she was walking down the street.  Car jumped the curb and knocked her into a dumpster.  She was a Phd student. 

My former UM roommate's mom was killed by DUI driver, she was sitting in her car outside their house.  Car lost control and slammed into her. 

Don't drink and drive.


July 21st, 2010 at 9:49 AM ^

Here's hoping that Stokes, Ricardo, or J. Robinson are prepared to step into a starting role against UConn, and possibly ND.

3 days in jail, for whatever reason, has a 1 or 2 game suspension written all over it.  I would be a gigantic hypocrate if I made any other assertion considering my stance on every other teams' players' misgivings over the last year (MSU nerd beating, ND house-party-seven, the entire SEC) .


July 21st, 2010 at 9:56 AM ^

I recommend that Rich contact Coach Dantonio and the MSU football office for advice on handling this matter.  MSU has always dealt with student-athelete jail time issues in the most professional manner and with the integrity of the program as the highest priority.


July 21st, 2010 at 11:22 AM ^

"From May 15, 2009, through June 1, 2010, according to court records, he committed probation violations such as leaving the state without consent, failing to submit to random alcohol testing nine times in a 63-day span, failing to complete additional alcohol testing and failing to report for probation on multiple occasions." ...extenuating circumstances?

i.e. "Coach, I'm going home for a short visit and I'm going to miss the last few weeks of "random" alcohol testing." Wouldn't be the first time the "roll of butt wipe in Detroit" ommited a few important facts to attempt making rr and his players look bad or go look up "it doesn't matter, it's in the past" material for their machinations against them.



Mr. Robot

July 21st, 2010 at 11:52 AM ^

No question about that, but that's not relavent to the matter at hanb because it happened quite some time ago and he's already been punished for it.

The matter at hand is that he violated terms of his probation, which I am not going to comment on the relative stupidity on until I know the details I'm never going to get. This certainly isn't something to brush off, but I don't think he needs to miss any games over it, especially if the circumstances had anything to do with his living in Texas and violating parole for going back there. Stadium steps and a stern talking to are good enough, methinks.

919 Brown

July 21st, 2010 at 1:27 PM ^

RIght on. Failing to complete the terms of misdemeanor probation is not uncommon. Probation revoked, serve some jail time, case closed. The only reason this could become a problem for Mr. Stonum is if he had an agreement that he must comply with the terms of probation, or else. If that's the case, he can count on some addiitonal punishment coming his way.


July 21st, 2010 at 11:58 AM ^

That's being generous.

Unless the Freep is making this up out of whole cloth, Stonum is clearly flouting his legal responsibilities and he should be punished by RR. In addition to running steps from now until the beginning of the season, I'd also sit him for the entire UConn game.

If you think that's too harsh, I'd say that Stonum is showing that he really doesn't give a shit.

We just have to see if the Freep is spinning this or reporting the truth, for once.


July 21st, 2010 at 1:45 PM ^

I don't disagree with any of this. I just don't think he should be thrown out sight unseen. the proper approach to this is:

He's on EXTREMELY thin ice. He fucked up once, and was punished. But he has now fucked up TWICE and compounded the first fuckup. He needs to prove his commitment not only to the team, but to doing the right thing as a functioning member of society. If he does that, he's welcome back. If he does not do that...well, there's the door.