Inspired by recent events in Georgia (and less recent events in certain federal cases ) but in FQ so looking for factual answer about the law not opinions on the likelihood of these cases ever being resurrected in practice
When a case is dropped like this is there any legal reason (in theory at least) preventing a different set of prosecutors picking them up again and prosecuting them ? Even if no new evidence has emerged (beyond the evidence that the accused is no longer POTUS). Could a new prosecutor call a new grand jury and present exactly the same evidence to them ?
AIUI, just because a case has been dropped doesn’t mean it can’t be brought back to life by different prosecutors. That can obviously happen if new evidence is found or a new witness comes to light, but it can be for any reason.
I believe it depends on whether formal charges have been brought. If formal charges are brought, the prosecutor requests the judge dismiss them with or without prejudice. The judge will usually comply, but doesn’t have to. For example, the prosecution in the Eric Adam’s case requested the charges be dropped without prejudice, but the judge dismissed them with prejudice to prevent the threat of re-charging being used for coercion.
And of course, there’s the statute of limitations.
For example, James Comey’s case was brought in a hurry because there were only days before the 5-year expiry. If the judge had ruled the indictment was flawed, apparently the prosecutor would have had 6 months (for the date of the original indictment?) to reconvene a grand jury and refile the charges. It’s unclear whether that applies now that the prosecutor themselves has been found to be invalid.
(However, apparently the rules the judge stated were that the administration cannot do serial temporary prosecutor appointments, once the original 120-day appointment is over the judges pick the next DA for the district. Thoughts were the judges would pick someone who would act more like a real lawyer).