|Photo by Emma Delk| Former State Sen. Michael Maroney at the Wednesday pretrial hearing for his charges of indecent exposure, disorderly conduct and driving under the influence stemming from two arrests in 2024.

Marshall County Magistrate Zachary Allman ruled a jury trial will be set for former State Sen. Michael Maroney for the charges of indecent exposure, disorderly conduct and driving under the influence stemming from arrests in August and September of last year.

Allman made the ruling during a pretrial hearing for Maroney’s case on Wednesday. During the hearing, Allman denied defense attorney Harry Moore’s motions to dismiss the case and upheld the pretrial bond conditions imposed on Maroney that the defense objected to.

Maroney faces charges of indecent exposure and disorderly conduct for an Aug. 4, 2024, incident where he was allegedly seen committing an act of sexual gratification on closed-circuit cameras at the Gumby’s in Glen Gale. Maroney was arrested on Aug. 13, 2024, for the incident.

Maroney’s DUI charge stems from a Sept. 23, 2024, incident where McMechen Police officers pulled over Maroney after he allegedly committed “numerous traffic infractions,” according to a news release from McMechen Police Chief Robert Shilling. After the roadside investigation, Shilling arrested Maroney on suspicion of driving under the influence.

The court ordered Maroney to enter and undergo a drug treatment program, either inpatient or outpatient, within a week from Wednesday’s pretrial hearing as a condition for the DUI arrest. Moore motioned that the condition of rehabilitation not be enforced against Maroney as the results of his blood drug testing were “well below any intoxicating levels.”

“All state police lab tests have come back negative against Mr. Maroney, and all blood result levels are well below any intoxicating levels,” Moore said. “In fact, his portable breathalyzer was 0.0. All other blood taken pursuant to a warrant came back negative.”

Marshall County Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Herman Lantz responded there were positive findings for amphetamines and cocaine metabolites in Maroney’s system in a copy of the forensic lab report filed by Moore.

“Those factors [the positive findings for amphetamines and cocaine metabolites] considered with the surrounding factors of the arrest, the driving of the defendant and the field sobriety tests, are all matters that would be considered by the trier of fact in determining whether or not the defendant is guilty of the defense of driving under the influence,” Lantz said.

Moore responded that the preliminary results of Maroney’s blood tests were “well below any intoxicating levels” and that a urine test provided by Maroney within the same time frame as the blood test showed the same result of Maroney not being intoxicated.

Lantz said that the doctor who provided the blood test was not sworn in and did not provide expert testimony regarding the intoxication levels of Maroney’s urine sample to support the motion of the conditions of rehabilitation not being enforced.

Moore responded that the positive blood drug test results were “so far below any intoxicating levels that the case should be dismissed immediately.”

Allman questioned whether cocaine metabolites were found in his system, and Moore clarified the cocaine metabolites found were “well below any recognizable level.”

“He could get a job in the nuclear power plant today with this blood test,” Moore said.

Allman stated that, based on blood test results, there was cocaine metabolite in Maroney’s system, which Moore responded could have “come from numerous things.”

Allman said that he did not know what an intoxicating level would be for cocaine metabolites, and he would have to hear from an expert regarding that. Based on this reasoning, Allman said the bond conditions would be continued. Moore responded that he intended to appeal this decision.

Allman then addressed the motions the defense made to dismiss the case. Moore said his motions to dismiss the case were based on the same reasoning that the “blood tests came back negative.”

Lantz objected to the dismissal motions on the basis that they were “premature” and that the facts of the case must be “presented to a jury for them to decide.”

“Ultimately, they [the jury] get to decide whether or not this defendant was driving under the influence or not,” Lantz said. “What he [Moore] wants now is, without any expert testimony, is to skip all of that process and process to dismiss. The state objects to that.”

Lantz said that Moore was making the same argument of the “drug tests came back negative” that he made regarding bond conditions.

“The drug tests did not come back negative,” Lantz said. “The court has the results. Moore filed those results, so essentially, what this is going to come down to is, what do those results mean?”

Lantz said the state will present its testimony, the officer’s testimony and the circumstances surrounding the Sept. 13, 2024 arrest, as well as the testimony of a forensic scientist regarding the drug test result numbers. Lantz noted that the jury will consider the factors presented by the state, along with any testimony provided by the defendant, including their own expert testimony and cross-examination.

Moore responded that the “bottom line” was that the blood tests returned negative.

“Maybe [there was] cocaine metabolites in there [drug test results], maybe other stuff in there that could be energy drinks, etc.,” Moore said. “However, the state is wasting everybody’s time with respect to the prosecution of Mr. Maroney when these tests did come back negative, and the urine test subsequently taken within the timeframe came back negative as well.”

Allman denied the motion to dismiss the case due to the two different drugs of amphetamines and cocaine metabolites, being present in the drug test results.

“I’m not saying it’s [the two drugs found on results] were at intoxicating levels, but I’m saying that there are drugs present in the results,” Allman said.

After Allman heard the motions, he determined that he, Lantz and Moore would convene with his assistant to set a date for the trial.

Following the hearing, Lantz said the Marshall County Magistrate Court will set a date and issue notices for the jury trial.