[Col Frank Slade]

The judge did this because dismissal of case with prejudice means Rittenhouse cannot be re-tried.

(In addition to acquittal by jury)

[Flash Bazbeaux]

I don’t think that the verdict is why the judge “granted the motion” to dismiss with prejudice. I think he intended to send a message.

In a case where there was NO motion to dismiss with prejudice, and the defendant is found not guilty on all counts, the defendant goes free. There is no need for a separate motion.

The granting of the motion should be done on the merits of the motion itself, not because the jury reached a verdict. In other words, the judge should be ruling on the motion as if no verdict had ever occurred.

The judge could have denied the motion to dismiss with prejudice as moot, on the grounds that the verdict rendered it unnecessary. The fact that he granted it sends a message.

There may also be a very, very, low standard of review on appeal where a motion to dismiss with prejudice is made, such as “abuse of discretion”. Meaning, if that standard pertains, the reviewing court must uphold it unless it’s completely off the wall. A reviewing court applying an “abuse of discretion” standard will NOT reverse the trial court simply because the reviewing court would have come down the other way on what is a judgment call.

[Sacajaweau]

I think the judges declaration makes civil suits impossible.

I hope the kid gets a few nice scholarships.

[AFPhys]

This can not possibly be better news. “Dismissed with prejudice” is the greatest reason for the judge to have not thrown out this case earlier with a mistrial or other reason.

Great news for Rittenhouse and America.