A grand jury I was on had the facts of a case presented where someone was out joy riding with an overcrowded pick up (something like 5 folks in the front seat and another 5 or so in the bed). The driver reportedly said something like "watch this" before crossing the dividing line in front of a little old lady, only to veer back into his own lane.
Unfortunately, said little old lady had gone into his lane to avoid him, only to "meet" him. Prosecutor wanted murder as I recall. I inquired as to the elements of the crime. Pointed out that his desire was problematic on two points: a) he was in his own lane when accident occurred (right of way, etc - HE had it) and b) veering back suggested he had no intent.
Rest of grand jury ignored my points, gave the prosecutor what I felt was way too high a charge. Only afterwards did one of my "fellows" come up and mention she was at the scene and police had made those exact points.
"Jury of peers" is supposed to represent a reasoning, reasonably intelligent group of folks that understand their responsibilities AND are willing to work to meet them. Unfortunately, that is too often not the case.
Must be difficult to live with - that no-one agreed with you.
How many people died while the guy was driving in his proper lane with the right of way?