I wasn’t trying to slam the QAC’s professionalism, though I can see how it reads that way. I think I reacted as many probably did, with a collective “WTF?” and not really looking harder into the issue. It just seemed highly “unfair” that an underage woman was drinking – even if not legally defined as drunk – and caused such a horrific and tragic accident.

You’re absolutely right, however – the professionals have done what they could using the bounds of law – something that I respect and admire and fully admit to being incapable of doing. I know my post comes across as more “I know better” but I know I don’t. It’s an emotional reaction to a situation that makes little sense. Which is why we have competent and intelligent people who are in those positions, so they can make the correct moral and legal call.

I’ve read some follow-up on the case, too. I know Miss Baldwin now claims to be 130+ days sober, dating from the accident, and I can believe that. Something this bad can have that effect and I would hope she uses the incident to better educate her peers as well. The guilt load she carries cannot be easy and I wouldn’t wish that on anyone, either.

Bottom line is, it was a horrible event and I am glad that resolution is being conducted with fairness and in the bounds of law. Which is something I wholeheartedly admit I could not do.

For the former, .03 BAC is not intoxication. The law doesn’t define it that way, and if you go home from a bar with a .03 and get into an accident, you would be arguing strenuously in any legal action that you were not impaired. So, if .03 is not legally impaired, what does it matter what Ms. Baldwin’s age is?

Regarding the latter, the “conveniently forgetting” assumes that Queen Anne’s County prosecutor does not know when he can secure a conviction in a relatively high-profile case. You are assuming that you, based mostly from the WTOP report, can tell better than the prosecutor what the likely evidence will be, the reactions of the local jurors, and the chance of conviction.

Remember also that convictions are beyond a reasonable doubt, and so to convict a legally unimpaired woman of vehicular homicide, you have to be able to prove that all of her medical or other reasons for falling asleep at the wheel are not as compelling as negligence – beyond a reasonable doubt. If the pros say it’s not worth doing, why are you?

Putting someone on trial when you know you can’t get a conviction is not deterrence, and it’s not justice. It’s conducting a vendetta. Whether or not Mr. Short’s estate wants their pound of flesh through a lawsuit (which they’re likely entitled to), the state would not be fair or reasonable in pursuing this case further if they believe a conviction is unlikely.