The jury deliberated only a few minutes before they decided on April 14 that a New Martinsville man was guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol.

David R. Watson, 44, of 89 Helen Street, New Martinsville, was indicted in May 2007 on one count of allegedly driving under the influence of alcohol, third offense. The incident was alleged to have occurred on Aug. 31, 2006, while Watson drove a 2005 Suzuki four-wheeler near Airport Road and West Benjamin Drive, New Martinsville.

Judge John Madden presided over the Wetzel County Circuit Court proceedings, with Prosecutor Tim Haught appearing for the state and Kevin Neiswonger for the defense. The trial began on April 11 with a jury selection of five men and seven women.

The jurors heard on Friday the testimonies of eight witnesses for the prosecution, among which were New Martinsville Police Department Patrolman Bruce Smith, NMPD Ptl. Don Larsen, NMPD Sgt. Dave Byers, emergency medical services workers, two Wetzel County Hospital emergency room expert witnesses, and a passenger on the four-wheeler the night of the accident. Watson did not testify on his own behalf, nor were there any defense witnesses.

Judge Madden charged the jurors on Monday with the responsibility of judging the facts. Madden said, “The defendant is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof is on the prosecution.”

Haught, in his closing statements, summarized the evidence presented against Watson. Haught said Ptl. Smith testified he arrived on scene at 11:49 p.m. on Aug. 31 to find Watson wrecked against a pole. Smith said Watson was bleeding from a cut caused by his passenger’s teeth cutting his head. Based on his decades of experience as a police officer, Smith deduced from Watson’s behavior, the odor of alcohol, and the circumstances that Watson was driving under the influence of alcohol. He arrested Watson and took him to Wetzel County Hospital for treatment. Larsen and Byers assisted in the arrest and also testified to Watson’s behavior.

Haught elicited the testimonies of Dr. Jeffry Pilney, physician on duty, and emergency room nurse RN Lynn Abraham, who were both of the opinion Watson was under the influence when he was in their care. When defense attorney Neiswonger indicated Dr. Pilney was making a judgement based on an impression rather than on medical tests, Madden observed that a bartender who has far less medical background is often called upon to make a judgment about whether or not a patron may have had too much to drink.

Neiswonger endeavored to show his client was disoriented at the hospital because of the accident. He pointed out that the police officers had not executed any field or hospital sobriety tests and Dr. Pilney had not performed any examinations to determine if Watson may have had a concussion.

Haught argued that defense was attempting to shift the blame for the accident to the police. “There was no rush to judgement on the part of officer Smith. Even if that were true, you would still have the expert testimony of the emergency room workers,” said Haught. He also pointed out that in today’s culture, if a student gets into trouble the parents want to shift the responsibility for the student’s actions on the school, or the blame for an athlete’s negative actions are placed on the coach. “It’s razzle-dazzle; don’t engage in blame shifting.”

Neiswonger’s closing statement centered on the police admitting that sometimes their original impression changes about whether or not a person may be under the influence of alcohol and that no tests were performed to verify Watson’s alcohol consumption levels. Pointing to items on an enlarged police arrest report, Neiswonger emphasized where the police had omitted tests.

In Haught’s final argument he reminded the jurors the police were not on trial—Watson was. “We’re not hiding a thing.” Haught said he was bound, as were the police, by ethics. He also said the expert witnesses “have nothing in it. They have no bias. . .The defense is attempting to focus on the details so you will not see the big picture. . .You don’t have to be an expert to know if someone has been drinking.”

Haught’s final statement summarized why he felt a guilty verdict was the only moral conclusion. Quoting Edmund Burke he said, “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” Haught said “Drunk driving is an evil—it kills people.” Haught told the jury the necessary components of the justice process were all in play—the rights of the defendant had been considered, the police and medical workers had done their job, and now it was time for the jurors to do theirs.

Even allowing for a small break, the jurors were out of the courtroom for only 28 minutes before they rendered a guilty verdict.

Watson, who works as a boilermaker, was given permission to remain on bond until May 2 at 9 a.m. at which time he will return to Madden’s court for post-trial motions.

Haught then submitted records to the court concerning Watson’s two previous DUI convictions which were not admissible as evidence for the August 2006 incident. Records show Watson was previously convicted for DUI in Wetzel County in July 2002 and again in February 2006.