Trial in CHP officer’s alleged murder begins

July 19, 2011

Kaylee Weisenberg

A murder trial is underway for a woman accused of killing a California Highway Patrol officer while under the influence of methamphetamine. [Tribune]

In his opening statement, defense attorney Tom McCormick said that Kaylee Ann Weisenberg, 23, wasn’t under the influence during the June 27, 2010, crash that killed Officer Brett Oswald along South River Road near Paso Robles.

Oswald was attempting to have a broken down car towed away when Weisenberg crashed into him. The defense is claiming that it was simply an accident and that Oswald’s location made him difficult to avoid.

Deputy District Attorney Lee Cunningham said in his opening statement that Weisenberg was a “ticking time bomb” with a history of reckless driving.

“She had been smoking methamphetamine three or four times a week in the months leading up to this crash,” Cunningham added.

Weisenberg has pleaded not guilty to felony charges of second-degree murder, gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, inflicting great bodily injury in the commission of a felony and driving under the influence causing great bodily injury.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

This looks like an accident. Our DA is far more interested in its own personal conviction record and future professional career than justice. You see this over and over and over again if you sit in on hearings. This atmosphere is costly to everyone on a number of levels . . . I am sorry for the loss of our officer and the pain his family faces. However, the destruction of this woman’s life, if it was an accident only, will do nothing to heal anything and can only serve to cause more pain as it effects her friends and family as well.

This is a long post but I think many will find it very interesting and informative. DRIVERS BEWARE.

After hearing that people with a .05%BAC (two beers) have been getting charged with DUI because they admitted to taking medication like Prozac or an anti-anxiety medication that they have been taking for years, I decided to see what was up. The first place I went was to Barry Logan’s site, the toxicologist for the prosecution in the Weisenberg case.

KCOY quoted him as follows : “With the concentrations that are here, it would be my opinion that Ms. Weisenberg was affected at the time by her methamphetamine use.”

I wondered how it is that he was stating “his own” opinion rather than sighting generally accepted scientific evidence. What I learned is stunning, people are actually getting convicted on junk science and they (LE & drug labs) admit that the majority of drugs can be detected but they CAN NOT detect when or how much was consumed. They admit that drugs can be detected day’s after they were ingested. Meth can be detected up to 7 day’s after use and if Ms W. was using it 3 times a week then of course her toxicology panel would be positive for it. But it gets better………

The interesting part is that Logan confirms as does the scientific toxicology community that meth only is active for 4-8 hours! So the most that Logan can testify to is that she abuses it and has a high concentration of the residual in her system, but he can’t say that her last use wasn’t three day’s prior to the accident! This gets more interesting because law enforcement has determined that your field sobriety test results combined with the LEO “expertise” of observation is reasonable evidence that you were under the influence of drugs even if none are found in your blood test! They attempt to use the excuse of a negative drug test, claiming it’s too expensive to test for every possible drug so if a LEO gives you a very negative field test score (and they always do) you will have a problem if you have any amount of alcohol in your system! This is about to get better……….check these excerpts from KSBY found under the following article:

Family of CHP Officer Brett Oswald files wrongful death lawsuit

12/30/2010 05:49 PM by Danielle Lerner

According to the D.A.’s office, a friend reported seeing Weisenberg use meth just eight hours before the crash. However, another officer who performed sobriety tests on Weisenberg says her speech and vital signs seemed normal.”I formed the opinion that at the time of the evaluation that I could not find her under the influence or see signs she was under the influence,” Reed said.

Prosecutors said yesterday that Weisenberg slammed into Oswald’s car at 67 miles an hour. (Currently, they say she was driving at 80 which I hear is impossible on that road, in that area.)

The prosecution also says Weisenberg’s driver’s license had been suspended the day before the accident. (Well if it had only been one day, she hadn’t even received the post yet)

This is a trial to keep an eye on for many reasons.

The facts that we the public know so far; a CHP officer is dead, having been struck by an automobile. Kaylee Ann Weisenberg is/was the driver of the vehicle that killed the officer. Other facts will be/ could be introduced during the trial, such as the speed of Ms. Weisenberg’s vehicle at the time of impact, the state of car at the time of the accident, the clarification as to whether or not Ms. Weisenberg was under some sort of influence while she was driving, any skid marks indicating whether or not Ms. Weisenberg attempted to slow down or swerve to avoid the accident will also have a part in the jury’s decision. To me, and I am not an attorney, it isn’t whether or not Ms. Weisenberg is guilty or not, it is WHAT is she guilty of; gross vehicular manslaughter (death caused by a vehicle) or murder. Both verdicts COULD BE true, it is up to the prosecutor to make the case that Ms. Weisenberg’s actions rise to the level of a murder or not.

My condolences to the family of CHP Officer Brett Oswald; I hope that the decision of the jury gives you some closure.