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.
The States’ cases so far have depended completely on ignorance, emotion, and suppression of exculpatory evidence. Mosby rushed into this without realizing her entire program would collapse if defendants chose Bench Trials to evade lynch mobs of their peers.
Does conducting her own investigation expose Mosby to personal liability in the various lawsuits filed by the officers? (And Schatzow and Bledsoe?). Smarter heads than theirs might want to mitigate their own exposure by stopping trials for which there is no hope of a conviction, and that seem to produce more evidence of misconduct with each repetition.