Do you think we've heard the meat of the prosecution's case (the physical evidence, phone, gps, doctors, etc.)? We haven't even heard from what I'd think are the most important players. If all the prosecution had was "some EMT heard her say it" - then a grand jury wouldn't have indicted her in the first place. This is all setting the table stuff.
If they stopped now... of course nobody is going to convict her.
I do think this is a somewhat tough situation for the defense. In a lot of crimes, reasonable doubt covers a bunch of possibilities. In this case, because of the storm... purported evidence... it doesn't seem like many other options are on the table (which brings me back to the either/or scenario) - so I think that's why the defense is leaning hard into the other idea.
A hard motive isn't a requirement. I think she was really drunk (and believe we'll have evidence on this later). They had a somewhat volatile relationship. They were fighting about something in the car sitting out in front of the house (maybe even if they should keep the party going or call it a night - who knows) he triggers her... he gets out... she rams into him and takes off. I don't think it was planned. I don't think it was intentional to kill him. Maybe she didn't even mean to hit him - just meant to scare him. Left without thinking or realizing she had hurt him badly. And... regretfully as indicated by her behavior later that morning (to me) she kind of sobered up some and remembered/realized something bad may have happened. Then, we then get her odd subsequent actions.
That's it. Nothing more.