DRIVER GUILTY IN DEATHS, BUT NOT DRUG IMPAIRED

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.