> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.smdp.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# Weller’s defense rests its case
- URL: https://www.smdp.com/wellers-defense-rests-its-case/
- Published: 2006-10-04T15:00:00.000Z
- Updated: 2026-10-23T21:30:48.000Z
- Author: Guest Author
- Tags: Crime, Downtown, #archive-import

*Weller look-alike adds a new twist*

*By JESSICA ROBERTS Special to the Daily Press*

DOWNTOWN LA — Lawyers concluded their defense of George Russell Weller on Tuesday with a pair of expert witnesses who testified that “pedal error” was to blame for the Farmers’ Market crash three years ago, and a third who hindered the claim by prosecutors that Weller was seen driving erratically the morning before he plowed into pedestrians on Arizona Avenue.

The trial of Weller — the then- 86-year-old man who drove his car through the bustling Santa Monica marketplace on July 16, 2003, killing 10 people and injuring dozens more — is nearing conclusion in this, its fourth week. Closing arguments are expected to begin as early as Thursday before the jury goes into deliberations.

Weller, 89, faces 10 counts of vehicular manslaughter and up to 18 years in prison if convicted on all counts. He has not been present for most of the trial, having received special permission by the court to be absent due to declining health.

With its final witnesses, the defense continued to build its case for “pedal error” as being at the root of Weller’s crash, showing that the elderly driver did not have control over his car.

The first witness called on Tuesday, Elizabeth Howland, contacted defense attorney Mark Overland last week after reading newspaper reports about trial testimony by David Eisenman. Eisenman said he saw a red sedan driven by an elderly, white-haired gentleman steering erratically on San Vicente Boulevard near Bundy Drive around 10 a.m. on July 16, 2003\. Eisenman later called police after seeing news reports about the Weller crash, and told officials about his experience with the red car.

Howland testified Tuesday that her father, who drove a burgundy 1991 Lincoln and lived four blocks west of the intersection of San Vicente Boulevard and Bundy Drive, drove Howland’s son to a motorcycle repair shop on the morning of July 16, 2003.

Jurors were shown photos of a 1991 Lincoln, as well as Howland’s father, who bears a resemblance to Weller. They did not hear testimony that Howland also spoke to her father the afternoon following the Farmers’ Market crash and that he claimed he had nearly been cut off that morning while driving. That testimony was ruled inadmissible hearsay by Judge Michael Johnson in a preliminary hearing.

The defense then called Jack Scully, a private investigator who testified that he had interviewed a man who heard Weller say that he “was trying to push the brake, but nothing had happened.”

On cross-examination Deputy District Attorney Ann Ambrose asked Scully what the witness had said about Weller’s appearance immediately after the crash.

“He said the driver appeared calm, normal, as if nothing had happened,” Scully said.

The final witness, Thomas Shelton, was called back to the stand to continue his testimony from last week. Shelton works in professional accident reconstruction, and reviewed the Multi-disciplinary Accident Investigation Team’s (MAIT) materials in an “independent review.”

Shelton said he concluded that the accident was caused by pedal error, the result of “unanticipated acceleration coupled with the panic of the driver.”

"The only thing left... was that in the case of this collision, it was a result of pedal error made by Mr. Weller after the collision with the Mercedes,” he said.

The defense has tried to portray Weller’s low-speed collision with a Mercedes Benz at the corner of Fourth Street and Arizona Avenue, just before the Farmers’ Market incident, as an initiating factor in the crash, causing Weller to panic and mistakenly accelerate when he meant to brake.

Still, Shelton acknowledged on cross-examination that in all his years as a California Highway Patrol accident investigator, he had only seen five cases of “pedal error” among the thousands he had probed.

Shelton described the only case of “pedal error” that he had personally investigated and observed the driver at the scene. He said the driver was “non-responsive” and unable to talk about the accident.

Ambrose has tried to show that Weller was actively steering the car as he drove down Arizona Avenue, a claim confirmed, at least in part, by expert witness testimony. Shelton indicated that Weller did not have control.

“He did not have control of the Buick, from the standpoint that he was trying to stop the vehicle but was pressing the accelerator instead,” Shelton said.

The jury saw a PowerPoint presentation showing steering wheel positions and how much active steering -- about 18 degrees to either side -- Shelton said would have been required to make the moves Weller’s Buick made as it crashed through the market. His testimony contradicted prosecution witness and MAIT investigator Richard Wong’s previous statements that Weller’s movement over the raised center of the road would have required “active steering input.”

The jury also watched an animator’s reconstruction of what the accident would have looked like from the driver’s perspective, to show the speed of the events.

Shelton’s testimony contradicted several key prosecution claims. He said that Weller’s collision with the Mercedes did not meet the criteria for a “hit-and-run” accident, something Ambrose has asserted led to Weller’s fleeing down Arizona Avenue. He also said that drivers’ hands are knocked off the wheel when an airbag deploys, something he witnessed in experiments conducted with officers in 1991.

Ambrose eventually questioned Shelton about his fee for appearing in court -- $250 per hour -- and his familiarity with the elements of the case, establishing that he did not personally interview any of the witnesses.

In fact, Shelton only went to the Farmers’ Market on July 25, 2003 — more than a week after the accident and not on the same day of the week.

*Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on October 4, 2006.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/100406.pdf?ref=smdp.com)