Reading the article makes it seem that it is more than "just" an oral sex defense. The fact that the police initially determined that the boyfriend was driving and that his pants were down seems to play a role. The case was only reopened because the deceased politically connected family pushed it.

That having been said, wouldn't performing oral sex on a driver be at least considered contributing to the accident?? Especially if very good at it??

It might seem that the trial judge thought that the defense in this case really "sucked", but, I have to give credit to the defense, theirs was truly one that the jury could "swallow"

The state had the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Heather was driving. That required the jury to believe that Esposito was launched through the driver's window from the passenger seat. The oral sex argument was spicy, but not dispositive.

Mr. Casey:

I think that you are making a claim that you cannot substantiate. In the abstract, it is true that a "not guilty" verdict means that the charges were not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. However, unless you were privy to the jury's deliberations or have seen some post-trial coverage that I have missed, I do not see how you could possibly know what was (or was not) dispositive in this case.

What we do know viewing the trial from a distance is (a) the defendant put on a defense that she could not be guilty of the charges because she was in the passenger seat performing oral sex on the driver, and (b) the jury acquitted her in a very short time. In the absence of any other information, it seems reasonable to assume that the jury bought her defense. After all, had the jurors thought she was being dishonest, it might have pushed them in the other direction. Such is speculation about what moved the jurors, of course. But it is speculation that comports with what little we know.