manslaughter

But he was probably only guilty of manslaughter at best.

But from what I've read about the evidence they have, it will work out as some degree of manslaughter.

The manslaughter charge could have meant up to 15 years.

He killed one man and was found guilty of manslaughter.

They said that there was no evidence to support a charge of manslaughter.

The numbers were not much better for those convicted of manslaughter.

Now a 10-year-old is dead and his 12-year-old friend will be charged with manslaughter.

Well, how about saving the court's time and going for manslaughter, maybe out in five or six years?

She is now serving 8 to 24 years in prison for manslaughter.

Three other men have been convicted of manslaughter for that.

If he was, his mother could face murder or manslaughter charges.

In addition, they were each convicted of manslaughter at the state level.

I'd say what's in the wind is manslaughter, at most.

The sister and her husband have been charged with manslaughter in the death of the 9-year-old girl.

And I don't think they can even find for manslaughter.

He was found not guilty on 13 charges of manslaughter.

Later she died and he was tried three times for manslaughter before being acquitted.

Three young men were convicted of manslaughter in the first trial.

From there it tracks down through the system as manslaughter and so on.

The three police officers involved were found not guilty of manslaughter in 1995.

He is to serve five years in prison on the manslaughter charges.

After his death, she was tried for, and acquitted of, manslaughter.

The way things are looking now, you'd have to confess to make us believe it was manslaughter, Mark.

Such an act fit best into a definition of manslaughter, he wrote.

But what if a manslaughter conviction had been an alternative?