At least that's the prosecution's contention as its case against Britnee Moore moved through its second and final day of testimony Tuesday.
Moore, 20, of 135 W. Lincoln St., is accused of driving at a high speed on Route 218 March 13, 2007, and while allegedly reaching for a cell phone, she crossed the center line and slammed head-on into a car driven by 16-year-old Hope Maley of Waynesburg.
The jury of six men and six women will begin deliberating today whether Moore should be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter, reckless endangerment, homicide by vehicle and other traffic-related offenses, including speeding and reckless driving, or find her not guilty.
District Attorney Marjorie Fox and defense counsel Mike Bigley will make their closing arguments beginning at 8:30 a.m., and Judge William Nalitz will then charge the jury on the law.
A majority of Tuesday's testimony focused on the speed authorities believe Moore was traveling when the collision occurred shortly after 9 p.m.
It was apparent few if any associated with the case dispute Moore was traveling at a faster rate than Maley.
The question then became how much faster was Moore traveling and how could her speed be determined since there were no marks that any evasive action, such as breaking, skidding or steering, took place.
Sgt. Joseph D'Andrea, a state police collision analyst and accident reconstructionist, said he used gouge marks on the road and fluid trails left by both vehicles' ruptured radiators to determine the cars' speeds, paths of travel and the point of impact.
He determined that Moore crossed the center lane on a curve and was almost completely in the oncoming lane when she collided with Maley's car.
The impact moved Maley's car backward, and it eventually came to a rest in a field nearby. Moore's car rotated and continued moving forward. This indicates that Moore's car was traveling much faster than Maley's car, since both vehicles were relatively the same size, D'Andrea said.
D'Andrea talked about conservation of momentum, conservation of energy, mass times velocity, angle of approach, angle sensitivity and perception/reaction in describing how he arrived at his conclusion.
Nonetheless, D'Andrea did conclude Moore was traveling in excess of 70 miles per hours at the time of the crash.
Moore was traveling in the northbound lane, and Maley was traveling south. The collision took place in the southbound lane.
"The entire front end of Moore's vehicle was in Maley's lane," D'Andrea said.
D'Andrea was asked what role the cell phone distraction may have played. "If Moore was going 70 miles per hour in her own lane, this crash never happens."
The defense countered D'Andrea's testimony with that from Dr. Ronald Eck, a self-employed consulting engineer from Morgantown, W.Va. Eck, a civil engineer by profession, was allowed by Nalitiz to testify as an expert on accident reconstruction.
Although he was hesitant to say what speed Moore may have been traveling, he did say the prosecution should have used a range of values to determine the speed the car was traveling.
Eck said Moore's car did hit Maley's vehicle, the impact of which pushed Maley's car backward and off of the roadway.
"That does show that Moore was traveling faster but I cannot assign a specific speed," Eck said.