Testimony Ends, Closing Arguments Tuesday Morning in Josh Brent Trial

View Comments ()
|
Email
|
Print

    NEWSLETTERS

    Closing arguments begin Tuesday in Josh Brent's intoxication manslaughter trial. Friday the defense presented testimony from an expert who said the blood tests used to argue Brent was drunk were precise, but wrong. (Published Friday, Jan 17, 2014)

    Closing arguments are set for Tuesday morning in the intoxication manslaughter trial of former Dallas Cowboy Josh Brent after testimony in the case ended Friday afternoon.

    Brent is accused of killing teammate and best friend Jerry Brown in December 2012.

    The defense spent Friday trying to unravel four days of state evidence against Brent, but defense lawyers were not been allowed to present all the evidence they wanted.

    Brent's lawyers claim he was not drunk and the tests that show he was are flawed.

    Chemist Janine Arvizu was prepared to testify Brent's blood samples were not handled properly but the judge refused to allow it saying there's no evidence that is true.

    He did allow Arvizu to tell the jury the lab test equipment was calibrated a month before the tests instead of the day the tests were run as should have happened. She said the results should be considered unreliable.

    Defense lawyer George Milner argued with Judge Robert Burns to allow a former police officer to testify about how Brent swayed in his field sobriety test.

    Witness Charlie Foster was prepared to say the swaying was not a drunken behavior from his 2000 or so intoxication arrests. But the jury was not allowed to hear Foster on legal grounds.

    The jury did hear Brent's former neighbor Aya Matsuda who was with him at Dallas nightclub Club Privae in the hours before the wreck. She said he did not appear intoxicated and she never saw him drinking at the club.

    She said he always drove his Mercedes too fast but most of the time she knew him he had no car and walked or got rides to get around.

    Evidence showed Brent only had this Mercedes 12 days before the accident.

    The defense was laying the ground work to argue that Brent is not a very good driver and high speed was the cause but not intoxication.

    That could greatly reduce Brent's possible punishment.