SPALDING COUNTY, Ga. — A woman who rear-ended a man in Clayton County while speeding and using Snapchat will now have to pay the couple nearly $110,000 for withholding evidence.
According to court documents, Christal Leatherwood, at the time McGee, was driving more than 90 mph in a 55 mph zone in 2015 when she hit Wentworth Maynard’s car. She was “motivated” to drive while on Snapchat due to the app’s speed filter feature.
Leatherwood previously entered a plea of no contest to charges related to the crash.
[DOWNLOAD: Free WSB-TV News app for alerts as news breaks]
Leatherwood had denied she was speeding and using Snapchat while driving, but her passengers said in court that she was, and had been driving at almost 100 mph, according to court records.
On Oct. 3, a Spalding County judge ordered Leatherwood to pay Wentworth and Karen Maynard thousands of dollars for withholding her phone from evidence. The Maynards are suing Leatherwood and Snap, Inc. over the accident.
RELATED STORIES:
- Judge orders Snapchat CEO to answer questions in 100mph crash lawsuit over app’s speed filter
- EXCLUSIVE: Passengers say 100 mph crash encouraged by Snapchat ‘speed filter’
- Judge dismisses case against Snapchat in suit over serious wreck
- Snapchat tries to get Georgia crash case dismissed, says teen driver was not on app
Court records state that Leatherwood was ordered to turn the phone over for examination, but did not do so for about eight months.
In the order for the $109,612 judgment, the court said Leatherwood admitted to receiving the preservation of evidence letter for her phone 19 days after the crash.
While in a 2024 statement, Leatherwood said she produced the phone, other records from the case show she told the court that she continued using her phone for eight months after getting the letter, not turning the phone over to her attorney until either May or June 2016.
The court said that Leatherwood did turn a phone over in 2023, saying it was the same phone, but “extensive testing of the phone, including a ‘chip-off’ procedure and forensic examination” showed it was actually her sister’s phone, not the phone needed for the case.
No party, whether on Leatherwood’s side of the case, or the plaintiffs or Snap, Inc. disputed that the phone was not Leatherwood’s, and that it “had no data whatsoever related” to her.
“Had it been preserved, the phone could potentially have provided evidence important to resolving this dispute,” the court wrote.
Among the evidentiary findings the Maynards hoped to get from examining the phone was a “now-infamous ‘Lucky to be Alive’ snap” Leatherwood testified she sent hours after the crash, while at the hospital.
While Leatherwood said she took the photo after the crash, a witness testified that the photo was taken at the crash, rather than elsewhere.
Leatherwood agreed in court that the phone may contain the photo, as well as the metadata showing when it was taken, but the phone was not provided for examination.
Due to the “considerable expenditure of time and money by the Plaintiffs and Snap, and multiple hearings and phone conferences with the Court specifically” about the cell phone, the court ordered Leatherwood to pay the plaintiffs $109,612.09 due to the time and effort they spent working to get it for the case.
While Snap, Inc. would have also received more than $28,500 from Leatherwood, the court chose to reduce that amount.
The Court said that since Snap had argued that examining Leatherwood’s phone would be against their interests, the company could not claim funds from the sanctions.
Snap’s award from the sanctions was reduced to $0.
[SIGN UP: WSB-TV Daily Headlines Newsletter]
©2025 Cox Media Group
