Sorry, I should have been a bit clearer - I wasn't meaning to dispute what you said, so much as add to it ;)
Anyway, if we take his statements that he never intended the man to die at face value, then he's not looking at murder. In another sense, it's of little consequence - he is, by his own admission, responsible for the death of another, and the only question now is how long he's going away for. Whether Monaco or New York or wherever, he'd be facing the exact same problem - "guilt" is no longer a question, only "guilty of what, exactly?"
That's the rub of the trial. The arson charge was leveled because Monaco's out for blood, and it carries a life sentence. The Negligent Homicide is six years. With time served and good behavior, he could be out next late Spring.
But there is a presumption of guilt in the Monaco courtroom. Maher has to prove he did not intend to kill them. Sure he can say it, how can he prove it?
The prosecution has already argued in earlier documents that regardless of the scenario with Ted wanting to be a hero, he was aware that fire, once set, is not controllable, and could (did) have fatal results. In other words, they will argue he was willing to risk their lives for his heroism, thus the intent was there.