First, he wasn’t found “not guilty,” the charges were dismissed.
Doesn’t matter. Jeopardy attaches when the Jury is sworn in. And the jury has already been dismissed. At best, they can ask for a mistrial at this point. There are some cases where you can get a mistrial that allows for a new jury, but that is pretty much impossible if the mistrial was the prosecutor’s fault; even if, on review, a mistrial was not nessasary. Essentially, you do not want prosecutors to deliberately induce a mistrial in order to restart a trial that is not going well.
Further, there is simply no mechanism that allows the judge to even consider this motion, and the prosecutor in her brief did not provide a single theory for why it would be proper to consider the motion. This motion was written for the media, not the judge.
This us not out of character. In the hearing that led to the dismissal, there was a conversation with the judge during the lunch break. It subsequently came out that the judge was inclined to dismiss the case. Following that meating, the prosecutor’s co-council quit; and the prosecutor called herself as a witness. On its own, a prosecutor calling herself as a witness (subject to cross examination) is crazy enough. But the judge already told them he was dismissing the case. There was no legal reason for her to do so. The only justification for it was PR. In explaining her decision to call herself she said, on the record (but not under):
Court: It doesn’t matter to me weather you call yourself as a witness. It doesn’t matter to the defense weather you call yourself as a witness. So, if your calling yourself as a witness, there is no one here that is requiring you to be called as a witness.
Prosecutor: The information. Everything that happened in this regard, especially as it pertains to me, needs to come out in the public
Doesn’t matter. Jeopardy attaches when the Jury is sworn in. And the jury has already been dismissed. At best, they can ask for a mistrial at this point. There are some cases where you can get a mistrial that allows for a new jury, but that is pretty much impossible if the mistrial was the prosecutor’s fault; even if, on review, a mistrial was not nessasary. Essentially, you do not want prosecutors to deliberately induce a mistrial in order to restart a trial that is not going well.
Further, there is simply no mechanism that allows the judge to even consider this motion, and the prosecutor in her brief did not provide a single theory for why it would be proper to consider the motion. This motion was written for the media, not the judge.
This us not out of character. In the hearing that led to the dismissal, there was a conversation with the judge during the lunch break. It subsequently came out that the judge was inclined to dismiss the case. Following that meating, the prosecutor’s co-council quit; and the prosecutor called herself as a witness. On its own, a prosecutor calling herself as a witness (subject to cross examination) is crazy enough. But the judge already told them he was dismissing the case. There was no legal reason for her to do so. The only justification for it was PR. In explaining her decision to call herself she said, on the record (but not under):
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=03FPAS71YYs&t=24292