Police say Jamie Williams was driving drunk last month when her 2008 Honda Accord veered into the westbound bicycle lane near the crest of the 17th Street Bridge and fatally struck 16-year-old Cole Coppola, knocking him off his mountain bike, over the guard rail and into the Indian River Lagoon below.
And, apparently, prosecutors are confident the police have handed them a case they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt – because, this past Friday, the State Attorney’s Office formally charged the 21-year-old woman with DUI manslaughter and misdemeanor counts of possession of less than 20 grams of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia.
But there’s another side to the tragic story of what happened on that bridge in the wee hours of Sept. 27, when a perfect storm of circumstances resulted in a heartache that, for some, might never heal.
There’s Williams’ side.
And that version differs from the open-and-shut account provided by the Vero Beach Police Department – a seemingly strong case based on breathalyzer results, witness statements and an examination of the physical evidence at the scene.
While Williams does not dispute that she was driving when her car rammed into Coppola’s bicycle on the bridge at approximately 1:45 a.m., her version of the crash challenges both the evidence and conclusions that led to her arrest.
“Her position is that she did not cause this accident,” said Melbourne attorney Alan Landman, who represents Williams and already has entered a plea of not guilty on her behalf. “Her claim is that she was lawfully driving in her lane of traffic and the boy rode into her.”
Landman also is disputing the police’s allegation that his client was driving drunk or otherwise impaired, which means he plans to challenge breathalyzer results that police say revealed a blood-alcohol content of .12 – above the legal limit of .08.
“The whole case,” Landman said, “is being defended.”
That won’t be easy.
According to the Vero Beach Police Department crash report filed by Officer Chad Reardin: Two of Coppola’s teen friends were riding behind him on the bridge, and they told police they saw Williams’ car “swerve into the bike lane” before hitting Coppola’s bicycle.
The report also states that fellow Officer Sean Toole, the lead investigator on the case, “advised that he could smell an odor of alcohol emitting from Williams’ person” – a factor that prompted Reardin to suspect the driver of “being under the influence while operating her vehicle.”
Then there’s the breathalyzer result, which wasn’t entirely surprising, given that one of the diners at South Beach’s Trattoria Dario on the night of the deadly crash later told me she saw Williams enter the restaurant at roughly 11:30 p.m. and take a seat at the bar.
The diner, who requested anonymity, said of Williams: “She was drinking, maybe two or three glasses of wine while we were there, but she didn’t seem drunk or sloppy or anything. We stayed until about 1 a.m. and she was still there when we left.”
Less than an hour later, Williams, who worked as a bartender and waitress at the Citrus Grillhouse until her arrest, was dialing 911 from the 17th Street Bridge.
“There’s no physical evidence,” VBPD Capt. Kevin Martin said, “that the crash occurred anywhere but the middle of the bike lane.”
If so, that doesn’t help Williams’ defense, which then would rely heavily on Landman’s ability to beat the breathalyzer.
What if, however, the physical evidence doesn’t definitively prove – beyond all reasonable doubt – that Williams’ car struck Coppola’s bicycle in the bike lane? What if the police findings at the scene are at least, in some small way, inconclusive and open to interpretation?
Yes, there are the statements given by Coppola’s two friends, who said they witnessed the accident from their bicycles.
But what, exactly, did they see?
The police report said one of the boys was 32 feet behind Coppola when the crash occurred; the other was 250 feet back. And they were pedaling up a long, steep, exhausting incline.
Is it possible that, as the young boys struggled to climb toward the top of the bridge, they had their heads down until they heard the crash and didn’t actually see the impact?
Is it possible they just assumed Coppola had stayed inside the bike lane?
“They’re saying what you’d expect them to say,” Landman said. “He was their friend. They were upset. We’re saying what they told the police isn’t factually accurate.”
In fact, the crash report states that Williams told police:
“She could see the boys on the bikes ahead in the bike lane, and then all of a sudden she collided with Coppola.”
She was traveling at approximately 45 mph in the right lane “when Coppola swerved into her lane, causing the collision.”
She “pulled her vehicle off to the shoulder to check on the boys and call 911.”
Was she telling the truth?
Records show she immediately pulled over and called 911. Beyond that, I don’t know what happened.
I know only what the police report says, what Landman said and what my instincts tell me.
And my instincts tell me I don’t know enough to say, for sure, what caused the crash – or even venture an educated guess.
However, I can say this: As someone who did a lot of biking in his youth, I do know that, nearing the end of a long, steep climb, it’s possible to become so leg-weary that you begin to wobble, maybe even veer slightly off course.
Again, there’s no way for me to know if that’s what happened here. I’m saying only that it’s not beyond the realm of possibility.
Hopefully, the VBPD’s traffic homicide report, which isn’t yet complete, will provide more answers.
I’d also like to know why Williams didn’t simply move over to the left lane and give herself and the bicyclists some margin for error, once she saw the boys on the bikes ahead.
I’d like to know if alcohol, at the level determined by the breathalyzer, was the lone or major cause of the crash – or whether she was also drowsy, distracted, or just not paying attention.
I’d like to know as much as I can about what caused this crash, so that all of us might learn something that will prevent such a tragedy from happening again.
I can’t begin to imagine the grief the Coppola family is feeling, because I’ve never lost a child. Likewise, there’s no way for me to know what Williams is feeling as she struggles to cope with a haunting memory, because I’ve never been involved in an accident that took someone’s life.
“She’s having a difficult time,” Landman said of Williams, who posted a $100,000 bond, reduced earlier this month from $502,000, and has moved in with her mother and stepfather in Melbourne. “She’s having nightmares and experiencing flashbacks, but she’s going to counseling to try to work through it.
“It’s very tragic,” he added. “Tragic for the boy and his family. Tragic for her.”
Williams knows she could go to prison if she’s found guilty of DUI manslaughter. For that to happen, though, Assistant State Attorney Daryl Eisenhower must prove she was driving drunk and that she caused the crash by veering into the bike lane.
That’s why the exact location of the collision is so vital to the case.
“You can be guilty of DUI and not guilty of DUI manslaughter,” Landman said. “For it to be DUI manslaughter, you have to have caused the accident. There must be a causation factor.”
The parties are scheduled to return to court Dec. 4, when Circuit Judge Robert Pegg is expected to set a trial date. In the meantime, Landman has filed a request for discovery, which entitles the defense to all evidence gathered by the state.
“There’s a lot of work to be done,” Landman said. “The police report is just that – the police version of what happened. We’ve got a different version.”
Williams’ version isn’t easy for some in this community to hear, despite the fact that our laws afford her a presumption of innocence. One of our boys is gone, and the police have told us she is responsible for his death.
But there’s another side to this story.
It’s up to our system of justice to decide what actually happened that tragic night.
