I have not followed the trials that closely because I thought they were a ignorant mob to begin with. However, correct me if I am wrong, but has she not just tried and lost the strongest cases? Wouldn’t the other prosecutions rely on the first successful prosecutions?
This is the problem when you are led by the mob. When you build your house (case) on a rotten foundation it will not stand and in a court of law (almost always here in the U.S.) a case with a rotten foundation will not prevail.
It has been a mix of the cases, but she just tried and lost the case thought to have the best chance of any conviction. She also tried one of the arresting officers for false arrest and associated charges which is the weakest of the cases. The hung jury was for a case that is somewhere in the middle. It isn’t just the premise of the charges that are failing in court. The prosecution witnesses have been getting filleted by the defense. This goes beyond having a weak case, the prosecutors’ performance in preparing and presenting has been a train wreck.
No, not technically. Each case stands on its own, because each has individual fact patterns.
Also technically and ethically, a prosecutor is not supposed to file a charge and gin up the court process, unless they have sufficient evidence and a legal theory that can produce a conviction. In practice, prosecutors often bring charges without that level of evidence, or without a legal theory (see Zimmerman case), because the legal system facilitates "punishment by process."
The only risk she is taking is political. She is on firm / safe ethical grounds, in that even if she acts unethically, no court is going to call her out for bringing a case that is almost certainly going to result in an acquittal.
Who knows, the same (weak) case before a different judge could in fact end up in a conclusion of guilt. Plenty of "hangin' judges" out there.