The trial going on now
Hello

Brooklyn, NY

#21 Jan 28, 2012
Mistrial
curious

Pineville, WV

#22 Jan 28, 2012
Wrong story wrote:
<quoted text>
I listened to that testimony. I'm pretty sure they didn't say she was knocked out. They testified that she was "very quiet", "looked dazed" and her eyes were "glassy". Not once did I hear any of them say she was "knocked out". All of those men are professionals who I know personally. I would put them up against you any day in a battle of morals and ethics! Don't take it upon yourself to put words in their mouths....
Yeah...I kno them to!!! They are LIARS!!!! I wanted her to go to go jail just like alot of other ppl!! But they should not LIE TO MAKE THEIR CASE...AND THEY DID!!!!! AND I HEARD THEM USE THE WORDS KNOCKED OUT A FEW TIMES!!!! SO I'M NOT PUTTING WORDS IN THEIR MOUTHS!!!!
Seriously

Brooklyn, NY

#23 Jan 28, 2012
curious wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah...I kno them to!!! They are LIARS!!!! I wanted her to go to go jail just like alot of other ppl!! But they should not LIE TO MAKE THEIR CASE...AND THEY DID!!!!! AND I HEARD THEM USE THE WORDS KNOCKED OUT A FEW TIMES!!!! SO I'M NOT PUTTING WORDS IN THEIR MOUTHS!!!!
I also was there everyday! I heard the er doctor testify she was NOT HIGH, I heard the lady testify that she was screaming, the firefighters testify they knew nothing except it was dark, wet and foggy, I heard her doctor testify she was a model patient, never failed a drug screen in five years. Now am I saying she has some issues, sure she does. However the state DID NOT have enough to convict her ! Trust me , I listened very closely !
Seriously

Brooklyn, NY

#24 Jan 28, 2012
I also watched his wife prance all over the courtroom like she owned the courthouse. Not one time was she crying. She was there to be seen. She didn't care about her husband this was only a chance to show off ! His poor mother and father sat their and cried and nobody spoke to them and gave them any knowledge of existence ! But the wife was almost sitting on the prosecutors lap, that was a circus down there. The prosecutor nd his staff just costed the state lots of money to try that case for political gain. They made spectical out of the courts of Wyoming county ! Simple as that

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#25 Jan 28, 2012
"Officials cited legal issues which arose during jury deliberations as the reason."(for the mistrial)

The charges are still pending and a re-trial will be scheduled for later this year, according to Wyomiing County Prosecuting Attorney Rich Staton.
Seriously

Brooklyn, NY

#26 Jan 28, 2012
Shootist wrote:
"Officials cited legal issues which arose during jury deliberations as the reason."(for the mistrial)
The charges are still pending and a re-trial will be scheduled for later this year, according to Wyomiing County Prosecuting Attorney Rich Staton.
Correct ! However the facts still remain the same! Well see if they try this case again !
ron paul

Oceana, WV

#27 Jan 28, 2012
I'm a libertarian ,I think we shouldn't get involved. We should let the girl alone and stay out of her business.
retired guy

Pineville, WV

#28 Jan 28, 2012
I am a retired gas company employee and don't know any of the people involved. I just attended the trial out of curiousity and because I like to get out. I've attended several civil and criminal trials just because of this interest.
I thought both attorneys did excellent jobs in presenting their sides of the case. You could tell they were focused and well prepared. I was glad Rick Staton and his assistant represented the State, and also thought if I ever needed an attorney, I would be comfortable hiring Mr. Evans. They were both doing their jobs. I don't understand why some people on here are talking trash about either side. They were doing their jobs, and did them well.
On the trial itself, I think there's some misinformation here, at least based on what I heard from the testimony.
There was no testimony the road was wet at all. There was contradictory testimony about fog, but nothing about wet roads, etc.
I thought there was a lot of testimony that the methadone clinic she went to was letting her fail drug screens and never did anything about it. I think that's sad. I thought Mr. Staton was right: they weren't helping her. She needs real help. That clinic is just taking her money (or taxpayer money) and continues to give her drugs.
I observed the Defendant nodding off several times during trial and Mr. Evans or his assistant had to remind her to straighten up. I don't know if the jury noticed, but I think she was on something throughout the trial.
I observed the victim's widow very upset and she had to run from the courtroom when the autopsy was being described. It's unfair to talk about her "prancing" around the courthouse, and it's mean to say otherwise.
Although even people in the courtroom never know all the goings on because of the private conferences and things, if I had been on the jury I would have voted to convict her of the felony. All the firefighters were very convincing about her condition and I don't see they had a reason to lie. They are just trained to treat. The defense's only witness testified to symptoms of overdose or being impaired, and they matched how she was acting at the scene.
The trooper's testimony about her speed was just shocking. Speeds at up to 100 mph or more on that road. That showed me she was being reckless, and it convinced me she was high and paying no attention to how fast she was going or what lane she was in.
Mr. Staton said something on closing that has stuck with me. He said there were no winners here, that everyone was a loser. He was right. Someone lost his life. The defendant has or may still have a drug problem that caused or contributed to the car accident. She has to live with that for the rest of her life, and it has to affect her. It's sad for all the parties involved. But as far as responsibility for the accident, I think she was responsible.
guilty

Pineville, WV

#29 Jan 28, 2012
Quoting Retired guy "She has to live with that for the rest of her life, and it has to affect her. It's sad for all the parties involved. But as far as responsibility for the accident, I think she was responsible." And this is the perfect reason for her to continue her life of abusing drugs, now she has an excuse, its perfect for an addict, they need something to use as a crutch, "I have to have drugs so I can sleep" or "I can't forget so I get high", bullshit, once a dopehead, always a dopehead, that young girl will die from drugs like so many other small minded people in this county. I think she should serve at least ten years in prison, by then maybe she will forget the high, she'll forget her suppliers or they'll be dead from overdoses.
Seriously

Brooklyn, NY

#30 Jan 28, 2012
retired guy wrote:
I am a retired gas company employee and don't know any of the people involved. I just attended the trial out of curiousity and because I like to get out. I've attended several civil and criminal trials just because of this interest.
I thought both attorneys did excellent jobs in presenting their sides of the case. You could tell they were focused and well prepared. I was glad Rick Staton and his assistant represented the State, and also thought if I ever needed an attorney, I would be comfortable hiring Mr. Evans. They were both doing their jobs. I don't understand why some people on here are talking trash about either side. They were doing their jobs, and did them well.
On the trial itself, I think there's some misinformation here, at least based on what I heard from the testimony.
There was no testimony the road was wet at all. There was contradictory testimony about fog, but nothing about wet roads, etc.
I thought there was a lot of testimony that the methadone clinic she went to was letting her fail drug screens and never did anything about it. I think that's sad. I thought Mr. Staton was right: they weren't helping her. She needs real help. That clinic is just taking her money (or taxpayer money) and continues to give her drugs.
I observed the Defendant nodding off several times during trial and Mr. Evans or his assistant had to remind her to straighten up. I don't know if the jury noticed, but I think she was on something throughout the trial.
I observed the victim's widow very upset and she had to run from the courtroom when the autopsy was being described. It's unfair to talk about her "prancing" around the courthouse, and it's mean to say otherwise.
Although even people in the courtroom never know all the goings on because of the private conferences and things, if I had been on the jury I would have voted to convict her of the felony. All the firefighters were very convincing about her condition and I don't see they had a reason to lie. They are just trained to treat. The defense's only witness testified to symptoms of overdose or being impaired, and they matched how she was acting at the scene.
The trooper's testimony about her speed was just shocking. Speeds at up to 100 mph or more on that road. That showed me she was being reckless, and it convinced me she was high and paying no attention to how fast she was going or what lane she was in.
Mr. Staton said something on closing that has stuck with me. He said there were no winners here, that everyone was a loser. He was right. Someone lost his life. The defendant has or may still have a drug problem that caused or contributed to the car accident. She has to live with that for the rest of her life, and it has to affect her. It's sad for all the parties involved. But as far as responsibility for the accident, I think she was responsible.
I don't know what trial you were at but you clearly COULD hear ! Maybe cause your retired that means you may be old enough to need some hearing aids.. But you sir are misleading these people ! The roads were wet, the firefighter testified to that. And the assistant was there for notes and eyes and ears, sure the expert for the state said she was going 119 mph on that rad, seriously ??? Not possible. And the methodne drs said she had bpnever failed a drug screen. LET'S NOT GPFORGET THE EMERGENCY ROOM DR SAYING SHE WAS NOT HIGH.... Her drug screen came back only her medicine! And hs wife WAS NOT emotional she had her boyfriend there to consol her, she was ok ! You sir must be clearly bias to this case. The are the facts !
what

Rocky Mount, VA

#31 Jan 28, 2012
@guilty your comment of once a dope head always a dope head is bullshit i use to abuse drugs when i was younger and i went to the methadone clinic for a year and now im clean and sober 4 years and counting so for u to say that once a dope head you always r is foolish

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#32 Jan 28, 2012
what wrote:
@guilty your comment of once a dope head always a dope head is bullshit i use to abuse drugs when i was younger and i went to the methadone clinic for a year and now im clean and sober 4 years and counting so for u to say that once a dope head you always r is foolish
Good for you.. Hang in there.
confussed

Mullens, WV

#33 Jan 28, 2012
so she got off scot free no prison time and no probation or nothing. was this the verdict and is this tril over.

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#34 Jan 28, 2012
confussed wrote:
so she got off scot free no prison time and no probation or nothing. was this the verdict and is this tril over.
Read my comment #25 on this thread...It was taken from the newspaper, so NO the trial is NOT over...
Success

Brooklyn, NY

#35 Jan 29, 2012
Shootist wrote:
<quoted text>
Read my comment #25 on this thread...It was taken from the newspaper, so NO the trial is NOT over...
actually the state has the right to try this case again. Nobody knows for sure if they will. I myself don't see that happening. But you never know.
crazy

Hansford, WV

#36 Jan 29, 2012
If it is true that the doctors are testifying on her behalf that she was not high when she got to the hospital how are the state trying this case. i know she has a history of doing drugs, but isn't this america. don't they actually have to proove their case. Does anyone remember nascar driver Jeremy Mayfield. he failed a drug test and nascar suspended him and he took it to federal court. the judge ruled in his favor that the drug test showed the stuff in his system but they could not show he was actually high at the time. so they didn't have the right to suspent him. I believe it is still under apeal. everybody just remember one thing, if this was your son or daughter, would you want them treated like this. Judged on hatred or evidence.
Absolutely

New York, NY

#37 Jan 29, 2012
crazy wrote:
If it is true that the doctors are testifying on her behalf that she was not high when she got to the hospital how are the state trying this case. i know she has a history of doing drugs, but isn't this america. don't they actually have to proove their case. Does anyone remember nascar driver Jeremy Mayfield. he failed a drug test and nascar suspended him and he took it to federal court. the judge ruled in his favor that the drug test showed the stuff in his system but they could not show he was actually high at the time. so they didn't have the right to suspent him. I believe it is still under apeal. everybody just remember one thing, if this was your son or daughter, would you want them treated like this. Judged on hatred or evidence.
I'm so glad someone on here has an open mind and not judging by rumors . In fact the emergency room doctor testified by deposition that she was NOT high. She had a severe concussion ! The methodone doctors testified that she had NEVER failed a drug test ! What she had in her system was methadone and benzo's ( benzos are and can be --- Zoloft, Prozac, any type of nerve medicine . People are misinformed on this case ! This case only went to tril because of who she is, and where the victim lived.

She has to live ith this for the rest of her life. The state has to prove it instead of letting personal feelings get involved and coasting us tax payers for trials that are merely because of personal feelings. Know the facts before you judge . Morally yes it's wrong legally they have no case !
Retired Guy

Pineville, WV

#38 Jan 29, 2012
I'm not going to jump into this discusssion any more because clearly most of those posting are friends or family on both sides. You're entitled to your opinions, as am I.
But the prosecutor said they were going to try her again. I bet they do, unless she takes a plea or something.
judge not

Princeton, WV

#39 Jan 29, 2012
well i my self know someone who goes to a clinic and before going to the clinic he was jobless living at home with his parents and did'nt have nothing going for him but now he has a good job has his own place and has 2 vehicles and motor cycles and a four wheeler so there are people that the clinic has helped out a lot because without them he possibly still would have nothing going for him and as far as the incident that happened i think the jurors should judge only on the evidence that is shown in court and not by how many people show up in court. just my oppinion which are like a** holes everybody has one.
i_am_mad

Oceana, WV

#40 Jan 30, 2012
YA KNOW, thats what i mean, this county is all jacked up like they are the best, the first responders need to get their sh** straight,so someone who causes a accident or worse a death. EVERYTHING needs to be done correctly so that the person at fault gets held accountable. WYOMING CO....law enforcement doesn't seem to be doing that correctly, or else people wouldn't be walking scott free when ultimatly at fault. maybe they should be the ones on trial when the person doesn't serve anytime for a known offender. THE WAY THE SYSTEM IS SET UP, its not for the victims its for those at fault. innocent until proven guilty i mean really come on, and "beyond reasonable doubt", hell i am no lawyer but i bet i can get you off free on that one.
PEOPLE WAKE UP,WHATS IT GONNA TAKE? i guess if you walked out of your house with an uzzie and mowed down a bunch of grade school kids gettin on a bus, they'd say you were crazy.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Pineville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Create your own Forum (Jun '15) 3 hr UTrashy 1,667
Election Who do you support for U.S. Senate in West Virg... (Oct '10) 4 hr Pork 92,172
Welch Jail 5 hr section 9
Obama's free grant money 5 hr polite 2
**Add a word drop a word** (Oct '13) 7 hr luci 6,175
The Welch Hangout (Jan '13) 7 hr Sundog512 37,228
Welch Music Thread (Apr '12) 8 hr Porch Honkey the ... 454

Pineville Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Pineville Mortgages