CHP officer warned prior to fatal crash

August 2, 2011

Kaylee Weisenberg


Prior to the traffic accident that killed California Highway Patrol Officer Bret Oswald outside Paso Robles, a driver stopped to warn the officer that cars coming around a bend had an obstructed view of him.

Testifying in the murder trial of Kaylee Weisenberg Monday, Anna Aldaco said she pulled over when she saw Oswald standing in front of his patrol car on the side of the road.

“I told him to be careful because you can’t really see him coming around the turn,” Aldaco said.

Aldaco said that Oswald, who was attending to a stalled vehicle, appeared to be texting when she encountered him. But, she also said that there were orange cones in the road warning drivers and that she had enough time to step on her brakes before pulling over to speak with Oswald.

Soon after Aldaco warned Oswald, Weisenberg’s vehicle struck the officer. The accident occurred on June 27, 2010, outside of Paso Robles on South River Road.

Weisenberg pleaded not guilty to 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.

Following Aldaco’s testimony, the attorneys rested their cases and a jury viewing occurred. The jurors were transported to the scene of the accident where they walked along the reconstructed path of Weisenberg’s vehicle. One juror rode in the bailiff’s patrol car instead of walking.

Closing arguments are set for Wednesday at 10 a.m.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

What do you think would be the case now if the circumstances were in reverse? If the CHP officer had struck and killed a stranded motorist standing in the road, texting for help on her phone? Would they accuse him of the same crimes? Would they accuse her of contributory negligence? Would they investigate whether or not he used medications recently, alcohol? Would they call into question her shady past? Would they consider a previous passing motorist warning her of the dangers of standing in the road?

What do you think the case would be if you had one shred of decency… ounce of respect for the deceased?

Just curious. I don’t think you understand the magnitude of the sheer fact the this officer did nothing wrong except POSSIBLY taking his eye off the ball for a second. And if he wasn’t wearing a badge none of that would have seen the light of day because it doesn’t matter!

Let it go.

It appears to me that the defense is trying to, or may have established some degree of contributory negligence on the CHP part. Now where is the case going?

I really doubt that anyone can prove or disprove she had such a cozy casual conversation in such a hazardous area with the CHP officer instead of minding her own business and looking out for her own safety.

For sure it cannot be proven or disproved because the CHP officer is dead and won’t be able to verify it!

Now that the officer is dead, there is opportunity for more mystery witnesses to come out of the closet simply because it cannot be proved or disproved!

But I am sure the defendant will have some clear and vivid recall of the event in her imagination that some vehicle did pull over to converse with the dead CHP for his safety.

The DA has got his work cut out for him and might entertain a plea bargain to unsafe speed violation.

Willie, The CHP cars have cam recorders, her testimony can probably be verified and I see no reason to question her account of stopping to warn the officer as she passed by him.

As for the idea of a plea deal! They began closing arguments, yesterday….

Here is how I see it. A sober and alert person traveling at a reasonable speed – like Ms. Aldaco clearly had been – should have been able to slow down and be alert when spotting the cones.

Could the Officer have been more careful? Yes, I think so. Did he deserve to be run down at a high rate of speed by an intoxicated driver? Absolutely not.

She wasn’t intoxicated. She was given a field sobriety test following the accident by a CHP officer and he said he could not find any impairment. The murder 2 charge is not appropriate. She was speeding and she did cross the line and took a life, it’s man slaughter.


At first it was hard to get a grip on what really happened.

At present, no matter how hard I play the devil’s advocate, it I had to put $ on it, my bet is you’re correct.

She also has a good defense attorney.

Let’s see; the witness was traveling on the same side of the road as the abandoned vehicle the CHP officer was tagging, she noted that he had put out orange safety cones, and she had plenty of time to slow down and warn the officer of her “opinion” that he was hard to see, right? The defendant comes barreling across the road from the other direction hits the officer and his car; so how does this witness’s testimony even relate to what happened? This makes no sense to me, other than the defense is desperate to reduce the amount of time Weisenberg is going to have to serve.

I hope this witness isn’t all the defense has to offer. At this point it looks like prosecution FTW.