Post-crash tests examined
Prosecutors turn to physical evidence during trial’s second day, saying truck driver was impaired when the accident occurred
Prosecutors switched gears Tuesday in the Ben Brewer trial, introducing scientific proof they believe will show the 42-yearold commercial trucker was impaired during a horrific accident on Interstate 75 in 2015.
After introducing the emotional testimony of crash survivors Monday, prosecutors showed jurors three pieces of material evidence that supported their argument against Ben Brewer: a drug recognition exam that suggested he was on a stimulant, a Tennessee Highway patrolman who said the trucker’s brakes worked fine and a toxicology report from a state lab showing methamphetamine in his system.
It’s unclear what prosecutors plan to present today when Brewer’s trial continues at 9 a.m. before Hamilton County Criminal Court Judge Don Poole. They could call Brewer’s fiancé, Charity Pennington, who was in the semitractor-trailer with Brewer when he smashed into slowed traffic on Interstate 75 near Ooltewah traveling roughly 80 mph on June 25, 2015. Prosecutors say
Brewer never hit the brakes and was impaired at the time.
But Brewer’s public defenders, who have fought the prosecution every step of the way, continued to argue Tuesday that intoxication did not cause the crash. Brewer may have had meth in his system, but was he impaired at that moment behind the wheel? No testifying on-scene officers seemed to think he was intoxicated, because they didn’t document it, attorney Erinn O’Leary argued Monday.
But that’s what prosecutors have to prove if they want convictions on Brewer’s six counts of vehicular homicide by way of intoxication. The Kentucky driver also faces four counts of reckless aggravated assault and three driving charges.
Defense attorneys primarily sought to undermine the state’s drug recognition evaluation, a 12-step program officers use to predict what type of substance a suspect ingested. Attorney Jay Underwood, who has previously called the evaluation “voodoo science,” said Tuesday that Brewer wasn’t exhibiting any of the symptoms that indicate a person is on a stimulant. That’s what officer Brian Hickman guessed was in Brewer’s system, in addition to depressants, which never popped up during a blood test.
Brewer wasn’t suffering from loss of appetite, insomnia, abnormal muscle tone or high body temperature, and he wasn’t hyperactive or extra chatty, Underwood said. All of those symptoms belonged
to someone suspected of taking a stimulant, he said, not his client. Plus, Underwood said, Brewer was likely experiencing stress or shock from the crash, which killed six and injured several more. That’s why he had high blood pressure that threw off the evaluation.
“You’re obviously not a doctor,” he said to Hickman. “You don’t know what those base things for him are.”
Next, defenders went after Brewer’s vehicle. Investigators couldn’t fully check the 18-wheeler for defects because of the crash, O’Leary said, and
Brewer had some brake work done shortly before the June 25, 2015, crash.
District Attorney General Neal Pinkston had just one follow-up question for his witness, John Harmon, of the Tennessee Highway Patrol.
“The brakes were working fine, weren’t they?” Pinkston asked. Harmon said they were. One of the bigger grapples Tuesday involved a toxicology expert from the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation which tested Brewer’s blood.
Prosecutors wanted agent Melinda Quinn to discuss the affect meth has on everyday functions, such as driving, and how some people can appear “sedate” as their body metabolizes the drug out of their system. That would damage the argument defenders made earlier about Brewer not showing hyperactive signs of a meth user. But in addition to that, attorney Mike Little said, Quinn couldn’t say if or when Brewer ingested meth in relation to the crash.
“You don’t even know if he’s high,” Little said.
After a special hearing outside of the jury’s presence, Judge Poole allowed Quinn to testify.
With jurors present, Little repeated his argument: Quinn couldn’t give any specifics. Quinn agreed and said she believes a toxicologist should never say a person is under the influence based on their report alone. There were two other factors to evaluate: What caused the officer to be in contact with this person? And what did the drug recognition officer observe?