Author: Benny Greenspan | Wild About Trial
On October 16, the trial of Texas woman Kristina Chambers began.
The background: On April 19, 2023, Chambers allegedly was driving her blue Porsche Carrera
911 70 miles per hour near a Voodoo Doughnuts store. As she drove by the store, she “failed to
maintain a single lane and struck a curb.”
Turns out, the curb wasn’t the only thing she struck. The impact of the vehicle caused it to
immediately hit 33 year old Joseph McMullin, who was on a first date at the time. According to
the Houston Chronicle, McMullin flew 30 feet in the air and was pronounced deceased at the
scene.
Fast forward to around a week ago when the trial began. Chambers is currently charged with
manslaughter and plead not guilty. In Texas, manslaughter, TX Penal Code § 19.04(b), is a
second degree felony. The punishment for a second degree felony is imprisonment for 2-20 years
and a possible additional fine of $10,000.
A criminal conviction isn’t the only thing Chambers is facing, as McMullin’s family is suing her
for $1 million in damages.
As far as argument goes, the prosecution is claiming that the night of the collision, Chambers
dined at a restaurant in Houston and then proceeded to hit three bars, downing at least six
alcoholic beverages and using cocaine in the process. This is supported by Chambers having a
blood alcohol content of .301 an hour after the crash.
On the other side, the defense is blaming not the cocaine nor the alcohol consumption but the
heels Chambers was wearing that night. Defense attorney Mark Thiessen told the jury that
Chambers’s heels got stuck on the gas pedal while she was driving, causing the car to accelerate
to 70 miles per hour and hit the curb as well as McMullin. The road apparently had a bend or
curve to it as well, which Thiessen referred to as “one of Houston’s most dangerous curves.”
While the curve may indeed be a sharp one and the heels could have even gotten stuck,
considering Chambers’s BAC level, I am not sure how convincing the jury will find that
argument. At the same time though, it is the prosecution, not the defense, that has the burden of
proof
