Driver guilty in deaths, but not drug impaired

Kim Smith

Friday, Feb. 16, 2001 | 12:23 p.m.

After 10 hours of deliberations over two days, an emotional jury found that Jessica Williams was guilty of driving with marijuana and Ecstasy in her blood on the day she struck and killed six teenagers on Interstate 15.

The jury also found that while she used the drugs, she was not under the influence of them, giving her defense attorney strong grounds for an appeal.

Williams faces two to 20 years on each of the six counts when she is sentenced by District Judge Mark Gibbons on March 30. Gibbons has the discretion to impose the sentences consecutively or concurrently.

The jury could also have convicted Williams of the less serious charges of reckless driving or involuntary manslaughter, but found her not guilty of those charges.

Speaking outside the courthouse after the verdict, Williams' defense attorney John Watkins said he was elated with the jury's decision because they found her not guilty of being impaired. Although he said the sentence would not have been affected by an impairment finding, he said his appeal would have been severely weakened.

"It really would have hurt bad if they had found that she was under the influence," Watkins told Williams' family after the verdicts were read. "Jessica will have relief."

He said Jessica Williams' reaction to him was, "God loves me, thank you very much Mr. Watkins."

Watkins said the law Williams was convicted under would apply to anyone taking any medication, which he said means it must be unconstitutional.

"It will not withstand constitutional muster," Watkins said. "The jury said she was not impaired. If she was not impaired, how could she be driving under the influence," he asked.

Watkins reiterated his position, that Clark County was at fault for having the children in the median in the first place, doing community service for petty crimes.

Prosecutors tried Williams under two driving under the influence statutes. One of them, which became effective in October 1999, states that anyone with more than two nanograms of marijuana's active ingredient in their blood is guilty of driving under the influence.

Under the other statute, prosecutors had to prove that she was impaired.

Watkins has argued all along that there is no correlation between THC in the blood and impairment.

The verdicts resulted in quiet sobs and tears from the crowd, which seemed at odds with the 21 bailiffs and court security officers who ringed the courtroom.

One of the jurors buried her head in her hands as they walked into the courtroom and others wiped tears from their as the verdicts were read. They declined to comment afterward.

The father of one of the victims, Scott Garner Sr., said the case is far from over. A civil suit is pending against the county because the six teens killed were picking up trash as part of a county work service program.

Jurors wrote several notes to the judge Thursday, but none of them announced that they had reached a verdict.

Instead, the jurors were busy asking for clarification on verdict forms and jury instructions -- none of which offered a clue as to a possible verdict.

John has argued Williams simply fell asleep. He contends there is no correlation between marijuana and impairment. He also told jurors that blood tests that showed 5.5 nanograms of THC in her blood were erroneous.

Watkins told jurors, however, there were two minor charges he wasn't contesting. He did not contest that Williams had a prohibited substance (the marijuana) in her van or that she used it. He still maintained that she wasn't under the influence, however.

The jurors' first question Thursday indicated they were not clear if they could convict Williams on more than one charge.

Gibbons brought them in to the courtroom and explained the verdict form to them. Again, they were told they could convict Williams on one or both of the DUI charges, but if they did, they could not convict her of involuntary manslaughter or reckless driving. They were also told they could convict her of reckless driving or manslaughter, but not the DUI charges.

Gibbons also instructed them to re-read the jury instructions to find certain definitions they asked about.

They later asked if they had to find Williams guilty of each of five elements listed under the prohibited substance DUI statute. They were told yes about four of them, the fifth was an "either/or" situation -- they had to find she either had to have the THC in her blood or the chemical components it breaks down into.

The jurors also wanted to know how they could indicate they believe Williams was guilty of using a prohibited substance, but not of being under the influence of it because they were provided only one box to check. A new verdict form with two boxes was provided to them.

Watkins said he believes the question means they understand his argument that use of a drug doesn't mean a person is impaired. Chief Deputy District Attorney Gary Booker said he thinks it means the jury is being diligent and thinking about the issues.