The less you speak of legal issues, the less you'll embarrass yourself. I'll only address your first paragraph to begin. You state that "people cause accidental deaths every day and unless the State can prove intent or "reckless malice", we don't put the person who caused the accident in jail". You're wrong. In the state of Ohio, to name but one example, an individual who causes an accidental death can very go to jail in the absence of a showing of intent or "reckless malice". I refer you to ORC 2903.041, "Reckless Homicide". Note that the state of mind for liability is "recklessness", which, in Ohio, is defined without regard to malice, implied or express. O.R.C. 2901.22(B). In a particular case, if the State is unable to prove recklessness, does that mean that our defendant is necessarily off of the proverbial hook? I refer you ORC 2903.05, "Negligent Homicide". Never mind intent or "reckless malice" here, Fuzz. Not even recklessness is needed to prove this case in terms of mens rea; mere negligence is enough, albeit at a misdemeanor level of liability. You see, Fuzz, details matter. If you want to play armchair attorney on the Internet, learn about these types of "details". If California has no law whatsoever that is substantially similar to either of these two Ohio statutes, then I can only say that such would be a ridiculous failure on the part of the legislature in California.
You then compound your ignorance by referring to "my argument". My only actual argument regarding this case, a case in which you correctly assume that I did not sit through the entire trial, is that it is very questionable that the undisputed facts of this case resulted in an absolute exoneration of the defendant, and that it would be astonishing if the State did not have some alternate theory of liability (which was inexplicably not presented as a charge) such as a California equivalent of reckless or negligent homicide. Now, I also made the argument that you don't know the law and that you don't know what you are talking about- and your ignorance combined with your arrogance is actually of greater interest to me than this case itself; it's always a joy to see some patronizing lecture to the rest of us from a pompous windbag. You rarely fail to amuse.