Appellate panel hears bid for new trial in Justin Whaley fatal-crash convictions

An appellate court heard oral argument on a petition by Justin Whaley seeking a new trial after his conviction in a fatal crash, with defense counsel urging the court to expand a trial judge's partial grant of coram nobis relief and the state urging the court to deny relief in full.

The petition centers on allegations that Officer Jeremy Wright intentionally misstated facts in an affidavit used to obtain a search warrant, subsequent internal-investigation findings that some supervisors considered Wright untruthful, and a four-hour delay before a blood draw that produced a blood-alcohol reading of 0.02. "This case is fundamentally about fairness, and I think fairness requires that Mr. Whaley be given a new trial in this matter," defense attorney Lee Davis told the court.

Why it matters: The trial court granted partial coram nobis relief for two counts (counts 1 and 8), and the defense asked the appellate panel to extend that remedy to all counts. If the appellate court were to grant broader relief, Whaley could receive a new trial; if it reverses the trial court, the convictions would stand. The state told the court the newly disclosed material would not have changed the jury's verdict.

Facts and dispute: According to argument and the trial record cited by counsel, the crash occurred at about 5:40 a.m. following the night Whaley spent at a friend’s house on Bakewell Mountain. Counsel said Whaley called 911 immediately after the collision and attempted to render aid. At the scene, defense counsel said, none of the roughly a dozen uniformed officers who arrived suspected impairment: they did not administer field sobriety tests, and although a breathalyzer was at the station, it was not used.

The disputed investigative conduct centers on Officer Jeremy Wright. Davis told the court Wright wrote in a search-warrant affidavit that he smelled a faint odor of alcohol from Whaley, but later admitted in hearings that he did not have probable cause for DUI. Davis said two senior officers in Wright’s department had documented concerns about Wright’s truthfulness and that a separate criminal investigation of Wright occurred while the defense was preparing for trial. Davis argued those matters were Giglio impeachment material that the prosecution should have disclosed: "There was a duty under Giglio to let us know that. Nobody ever told us that," he said.

Davis also highlighted the blood timeline and scientific debate. He told the court there was a four-hour gap between the crash and when Whaley’s blood was drawn, asserting that the delay was under police control and made retrograde extrapolation unreliable. The analyzed sample registered 0.02. Defense counsel contended the test result fell at the margins of what is scientifically reliable and that, when measurement error is applied, the result could be as low as 0.018 — a range he said was not fit for extrapolation.

The state countered that even without the blood evidence the record contained other strong evidence: Whaley’s 911 call, witness testimony about sampling several bourbons the night before, and other officer observations. "This court should reverse the trial court's ruling and deny the defendant's petition for coram nobis relief in its entirety because the newly discovered evidence about the arresting officer ... would not have caused the jury to reach a different verdict at trial," Assistant District Attorney Caroline Weldon told the panel.

The parties also disputed the admissibility and weight of expert testimony. The defense relied on an accident reconstructionist to show how road geometry and signage could make a driver mistake an exit; the state offered a forensic toxicology expert who testified the 0.02 measurement was within a linear phase that could support retrograde extrapolation with caveats. Davis argued the state’s road witness had been presented as a lay witness but was allowed to opine in ways the defense had tried to restrict.

Other factual and procedural points raised during argument: defense counsel said Officer Wright spent roughly an hour-and-a-half with Whaley at the police station in the room that contained a breathalyzer but never administered a breath test; Davis said Wright later "unarrested" Whaley after the blood was taken and that Captain Jenkins and Lieutenant Elrod — who later testified about Wright’s alleged untruthfulness — were fired by the Soddy-Daisy Police Department the evening they revealed the information. The state responded that Wright’s role in the investigation was limited to securing the warrant and arranging the blood draw and that no record evidence showed law-enforcement delay had compromised the blood sample.

Court outcome and next steps: After rebuttal argument, counsel were excused and the court moved on to the next docket item. The panel did not announce an immediate ruling on the petition during the argument, and the appellate court will issue a written decision at a later date.