How does this case compare with any other pedestrian deaths? I was looking over the old reports of Matthew Broderick and he basically got off with a fine for an even more horrific traffic accident. Is there any consistency to the charges that the general public expects? Has this case become so prominent because it's a rare case of thwarted justice or because it's a lightning rod for resentment (fully justified) for diplomatic immunity?
My impression of the U.S. is that charges vary wildly depending on location.
According to Wikipedia he was acquitted of Causing Death by Dangerous Driving, and convicted only of Careless Driving, a far less serious offence. (There's now a charge of Causing Death by Careless Driving, too, which I don't like at all because it amounts to "causing death by having an accident", but that's beside the point).
I assume that's because he had no recollection of the incident, there were no witnesses, and there was insufficient evidence for the jury to be sure that his driving was. in fact, dangerous ("the defendant’s driving falls far below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver and it would be obvious that driving in that way would be dangerous") rather than careless ("the defendant's driving falls below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver").
It's certainly gained a great deal of publicity because of her diplomatic immunity but, given the circumstances as they've been reported (though it remains to be seen how the prosecution put the case), then it certainly should be charged as Death by Dangerous Driving which, on conviction, will almost inevitably attract a sentence of at least two years.
ETA: I should add that, over here, if the driving in question was a result of the driver's tiredness, or jet-lag, or because of prescription medication, that's as serious an aggravating feature as would their being drunk or stoned.