A much stricter question is whether it is criminally negligent in instructing a 'driver' of a quasi-automonomous vehicle to not look at the road.
I think the case can be made that the entire testing protocol is criminal. In Arizona, one can be charged with up to Murder 2 if "Under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life, a person recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death and thereby causes the death of another person."
I hope we can agree that if Uber calculated that the risk of killing someone over the course of their testing was 99%, that is criminal behavior. I also hope that we can agree that if they didn't calculate this risk, began testing anyway, and killed someone, this is also criminal behavior. Given the facts, it is hard to believe that they calculated the risk: it's hard to believe that disabling safety systems and giving the "safety driver" tasks that would preclude being a safety driver could run an acceptable risk.
Waymo is much more forthcoming about their safety data, and can make a compelling case that they have correctly evaluated the risks and that they are acceptable. Uber has not been as forthcoming. Oh, and they plan to resume testing this summer - just not in Arizona.