riverrat10k
Regular Member
The above is actually very important to understand, because a nolle prosequi is not identical to dismissal with prejudice. The code section is written as:
Good cause is key. Many courts effectively rubber-stamp the motion -- this allows the CA a Do-Over. Not good for us.
Here, the court refused to play along, so "the judge had made a good decision" is indeed an important comment.
Knowing this, there has been at least one attempt in the General Assembly to strike the good cause clause, which obviously would give every CA in the Commonwealth enormous power over each and every defendant.
Under those circumstances, the Sword of Damocles trumps the Bolt of Zeus.
P.S. -- A new opinion on Brandishing (conviction reversed and vacated).
Repeater, I agree, once I understood what this meant. At first I was shocked that User would not accept. It was later explained to me. How it was done was very interesting. The CA offered up the nolle pros. very early in the proceeding, before all the other motions were discussed. The judge said he would reserve judgement on the motion at that time. Rest of arguements ensued. Near the end, the judge announced he would now rule on CA's motion, and that it WAS NOT GRANTED. The CA said "Withdrawn, withdrawn." The judge said you can't withdraw your motion, I have to rule on it or ALLOW you to withdraw it (very close to what was said, User's court recorder will have it verbatim.) I thought this was very significant.