Joshua Jorette Charged in Wrong-Way Crash on Route 13
Jorette faces charges including DUI and reckless driving after a wrong-way crash on Route 13, according to wgmd.com.
3 reports on this incident · first at Sep 6, 2026, 9:16 p.m. ET
Earlier reports
Sep 6, 2026, 9:21 p.m. ET
Joshua Jorette Charged in Wrong-Way Crash on Route 13 Involving Patrol Vehicle
Joshua Jorette has been charged with DUI, reckless driving, and possession of a controlled dangerous substance, according to wgmd.com. The charges stem from a crash in which the government alleged Jorette drove a pickup truck the wrong way on Route 13 and collided with a Maryland State Police patrol vehicle.
As these are only charges, Jorette has not been tried and is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The case is at the charging stage, and no verdict has been reached. Maryland State Police investigated the crash. The date of the crash has not been established in the available reporting.
Sep 6, 2026, 9:16 p.m. ETFirst report
Wrong-Way Driver Charged After Route 13 Crash Injures 3
A man has been charged after a wrong-way crash on Route 13 in Wicomico County that injured three people, according to wgmd.com. The incident occurred on September 7, 2026, and the investigation is ongoing. The case is at the charging stage and has not been resolved; no trial has been held and no conviction has been entered.
Joshua Jorette faces charges of DUI, reckless driving, and possession of a controlled dangerous substance, as reported by wgmd.com. The government alleges that Jorette drove a pickup truck the wrong way on Route 13 and collided with a Maryland State Police patrol vehicle.
The charges are allegations, and Jorette is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The Maryland State Police are investigating the crash.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 17 Sept 2026, 01:21current
First published.
- Version 17 Sept 2026, 01:16current
First published.
- Version 17 Sept 2026, 01:23current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.