On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 17:45:49 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 17:10:35 -0500, wrote:
complicity is pretty easy to establish.
Charge the guy. Convict the guy. Then figure out what to do with him.

I'm guessing that's probably not too far from the truth, except for
the conviction part. I've experienced something similar up here in
Toronto, Canada, except the charges were part of the cops fact
finding.

I was sick and passed out at the wheel of my car. Slammed head on into
a concrete light pillar and knocked it over. Woke up in the hospital
not remembering one bit of the accident. Cops didn't have a clue why
the accident happened either, but that didn't stop them from charging
me with careless driving. When I consulted a lawyer, I was told it was
just one method they use to find more information.
And IF you were sick when you got behind the wheel, you WERE guilty
of driving without due care and attention - and therefore, legally -
you WERE guilty of "careless driving".
Depending on the circumstances, the charge would LIKELY be dismissed,
and if not you would quite LIKELY be found not guilty - but by the
letter of the law - if you were sick when you got behind the wheel,
you WERE guilty of the charge. That's just the way the law works.
Due care and attention would preclude you from driving if you knew you
were not physically and mentally up to the task, or if you reasonably
should have known.

That is up to the court to decide from the evidence brought forward
IF it gets to trial.