The trial of a speedboat driver involved in a fatal crash on Lake Murray has taken a dramatic turn as the defendant, Tracy Gordon, admitted to drinking eight beers prior to the accident. However, he vehemently denied being intoxicated at the time of the crash, stating that he did not see the pontoon boat until he was right on top of it.

During a cross-examination by Deputy 5th Circuit Solicitor Dan Goldberg, who is prosecuting the case, Gordon was asked if it would be dangerous to drink six beers and drive home. His response was intriguing, as he said, “Yes, it could be, depending on what you’re drinking.” This statement opens up a new perspective on the potential risks of drinking and driving, highlighting that the type of alcohol consumed can play a role in impairment levels.

The crash, which resulted in the death of Stan Kiser and severe injuries to his wife and daughter, is described by the pathologist who performed the autopsy as the worst she has seen in her career. Gordon now faces charges of reckless homicide by operation of a boat and three counts of boating under the influence.

Gordon, a manager at a dog food manufacturing plant, is being represented by defense attorneys Joe McCulloch and Jack Swerling. Throughout the trial, both Gordon and his wife, Angie, testified that they had consumed light beers throughout the day. Investigators also discovered a cooler with nine unopened cans of Natural Light beer, the couple’s preferred brand. However, Gordon maintains that he is a “light drinker” and that their alcohol consumption was within their normal routine.

The accident occurred after the Gordons deviated from their routine and decided to try to watch a Clemson football game and a live band at a local restaurant. It was on their way home from this unexpected detour that the crash took place. Gordon claims that the night was pitch black, with no visibility from stars or the moon. He also denies cutting in front of another boat, driven by Paul Catoe, who testified during the trial.

Gordon’s defense hinges on the argument that he did not see the pontoon boat until it was just 15 yards away, leaving him no time to react. He insists that he never saw the pontoon boat’s lights and describes his actions as a desperate attempt to avoid the collision.

In the aftermath of the crash, Gordon admits to being in a state of shock. He claims to have gone through a traumatic experience himself, leaving him unable to fully comprehend what had happened. However, both the prosecution and witnesses have raised questions about Gordon’s behavior following the accident. Witnesses have testified about the Gordon’s decision not to assist the Kiser family and his apparent indifference towards law enforcement.

To counter these allegations, the defense has called upon a battery of experts who argue that Gordon was not under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crash. Expert testimony and eyewitness accounts will play a significant role in determining the outcome of the trial.

As the trial continues, the evidence and testimonies presented will be crucial in determining whether Tracy Gordon is guilty of the charges brought against him. Both the prosecution and defense are working diligently to present their respective cases, and justice for the victims and their families hangs in the balance.

A Ruling That Raises Questions: Gordon’s Blood Alcohol Content Excluded as Evidence

In a surprising turn of events, Heath Taylor, the presiding judge, has ruled that the state will not be able to present evidence of Gordon’s blood alcohol content obtained following a court order. The reason behind this ruling is a technicality – state Department of Natural Resources (DNR) officers failed to sign an affidavit that accompanied a warrant for obtaining a blood sample from Gordon. Thus, according to Taylor, the evidence is now deemed invalid.

This ruling has significant implications for the case, as Gordon’s blood alcohol content would have played a crucial role in determining whether he was intoxicated at the time of the fatal crash. However, the judge’s decision brings to light the importance of proper protocol and adherence to legal procedures in obtaining evidence. It is a stark reminder that even the smallest oversight can have substantial consequences in a court of law.

But what about eyewitness testimony? Two managers of the Rusty Anchor and Catfish Johnny’s restaurants, where the incident took place, testified that Gordon and his wife did not appear to be drunk. Catherine Reedy, the 34-year-old manager, even claimed, “They didn’t show any signs of intoxication.” She further added that she had no concerns about her staff serving them that night. Testimonies like these potentially hold significant weight in the absence of concrete evidence.

The eyewitnesses were not the only ones testifying in Gordon’s favor. James Bradley, a former South Carolina Highway Patrol officer, who taught field sobriety examinations at the South Carolina Criminal Justice Academy, backed up the restaurant managers’ claims. He conceded that the ultimate determination of impairment is best made by the officer present at the scene. Nevertheless, Bradley stated that he found “no indications of impairment” based on his analysis of body camera footage, surveillance footage, and reports completed by law enforcement officers.

However, Bradley’s analysis was somewhat hindered by the lack of notes taken at the scene by law enforcement officers. These discrepancies highlight the importance of accurate and thorough documentation to ensure a fair and unbiased assessment of the situation. It also raises questions about the reliability of the evidence presented in the case.

Furthermore, defense attorneys have argued that the chaotic scene on the lake shore on the night of the crash could have potentially influenced Gordon’s performance on the sobriety field exercises. Distractions, they argue, might have played a significant role in his responses. This claim further blurs the line between intoxication and external factors that may impact a person’s performance on such exercises.

As the trial unfolds, it is crucial to keep in mind that this ruling does not automatically prove Gordon’s innocence. Rather, it highlights the significance of adhering to legal procedures and the potential impact of technicalities. The absence of concrete evidence places emphasis on eyewitness testimonies, which all seem to be in favor of Gordon. However, these testimonies should be closely scrutinized, considering the potential biases and limitations inherent in such observations.

Ultimately, this case serves as a reminder that justice is a complex and multifaceted process. It highlights the importance of paying attention to even the smallest details and ensuring that proper protocols are followed to maintain the integrity of the legal system. As the trial continues, it remains to be seen how this ruling will affect the outcome and what other evidence will emerge to shed light on the truth.