Jury Begins Deliberation as Defense Presents Case at Whaley Trial

Hamilton County Assistant District Attorney and lead prosecutor on this case, Parker Garrett, giving his closing argument rebuttal, with Justin Whaley’s defense attorney, Lee Davis, watching on.

CHATTANOOGA, Tenn. (WDEF)- The jury in the Justin Whaley trial began their deliberations Thursday night as the defense presented their evidence throughout Thursday.

Before testimony, the defense attempted to get the vehicular manslaughter with intoxication charge against Whaley dismissed in the July 2018 fatal crash of James Brumlow.

His attorneys argued that the state had not provided sufficient evidence to prove that Whaley had been intoxicated at the time of  the crash

One of Whaley’s attorneys, Bryan Hoss, argued, “There is not enough evidence to a reasonable juror to find impairment in this case beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Hamilton County Judge Boyd Patterson moved to dismiss that motion.

As testimony began, the defense called Whaley’s former supervisor and a Hamilton County Sheriff’s Deputy.

Both of them testified that in the area of the 27/111 interchange in Soddy-Daisy, they have seen cars driving the wrong way including the deputy saying he himself has almost been hit.

The deputy, Christopher Walker, recalled one harrowing experience on Highway 111 by testifying, “I was approaching the East Valley Road exit, and the driver was in the what we know as the fast lane, and I had to physically swerve my vehicle to avoid being hit head on by them.”

The defense also brought in their own toxicology expert, Dr. Jimmie Valentine.

Dr. Valentine directly disagreed with the findings of the toxicology expert brought in by the prosecution, Dr. Kenneth Ferslew.

Dr. Valentine testified that the findings by Dr. Ferslew of Whaley’s BAC likely being between .056-.120 at the time of the crash is likely inaccurate because the equation used is not reliable at the .02 BAC found four hours after the crash from the blood draw that was done.

Dr. Valentine testified, “What am I saying is, you shouldn’t even use the equation because it’s down to .02 or below, so the range doesn’t even apply in this case.”

Hoss asked, “And is that opinion of yours supported by scientific literature that is well supported in your scientific community?”

Dr. Valentine responded, “I believe it is, yes.”

Dr. Ferslew was in the courtroom watching this testimony, and was visibly shaking his head in disagreement with Dr. Valentine’s assessment.

Additionally, the defense brought in a crash analysis expert, Steven Becker, to analyze the crash data from Whaley’s truck.

He testified based on his analysis, Whaley did not drive erratically leading up to the crash when he went down Retro Hughes Road off of Bakewell Mountain, and the sign of an error was the u-turn from 27 southbound to 111 northbound.

Lee Davis, Whaley’s other defense attorney, asked Becker, “When you’re at the area where Whaley turned around, are there red reflectors in that area?” 

Becker testified, “Not in the area of the turnaround, correct.”

After the defense rested mid-afternoon and both sides worked to resolve disagreements with the jury instructions, both sides gave their closing arguments.

The state in their argument argued that the evidence that they presented points to Whaley being intoxicated at the time of the crash with the .020 BAC taken from the blood draw four hours after the crash and witness testimony from Whaley’s friend, David Taylor, that he had drunken six glasses of bourbon whiskey the night before.

They believe no reasonable person would have made the u-turn that put Whaley on the wrong side of the road.

The defense in their argument, in which they went much longer than the state, says the state has not brought in any quote “fact witnesses” and that if he was in fact intoxicated, the police would have conducted a breathalyzer test immediately after the crash.

They questioned why Whaley was “un-arrested” just hours after the crash and said the intersection is hard to discern without any lights, and referenced Whaley’s 911 call arguing it showed he was lucid enough to be concerned for Brumlow.

The state responded by questioning how Whaley could have been confused by the intersection, considering crash data from TDOT showed the crash in question was the only wrong way collision since 2015.

The jury was then sent to deliberations around 8 p.m. Thursday evening, and called it a night around 9:30 p.m. Thursday.

They will resume deliberations Friday morning, where both sides await their verdict.