Originally Posted by
italianstallion
I don't think that part is hard to understand. Its just like someone said its a specific loophole that just doesn't seem right.
It's not a loophole. We have a case where one or the other must be guilty (by elimination) but have no proof which. Unless they were both in the car at the time, one is guilty, but the other is 100% uninvolved and innocent. If each say the other is guilty, there's no way the state could convict either, and closing the "loophole" by somehow convicting both would be a travesty.
Yes, it's unfair from the victim's standpoint, but it's the ONLY way our justice system could work.
BTW- If this happened in France, both could be charged and each would have the burden of proving his innocence.