[Michael.SF.]

Hitting the person with her car: was that intentional?

I think we all agree that it was an accident and not her fault that she hit the guy.

If not, it was vehicular manslaughter. I think she should have been tried for that, and then tried for the acts that followed, separately.

What purpose would that have served? Nobody would gain from that except the lawyers and the court stenographer. The great state of Texas would have been spending a lot of extra dollars for a second trial to proove what? That she did infact let the man die.

[night reader]

I think we all agree that it was an accident and not her fault that she hit the guy.
================================
I think we can aggree that it was not intentional. Fault will probably never be determined. Despite her testimony, we do not know whether he was in the middle of the road (where she should have seen him) or over on the side (where she had to go out of her way to hit him).