This isn't jury nullification which occurs during a criminal trial, and for which US Constitutional double-jeopardy protections mean that no further trial for the same offence may be brought.

This is a grand jury, which has refused to bring an indictment. There is no double-jeopardy protection here. The prosecutor has several options:

- Bring the case directly to a judge.

- File charges with a new grand jury. (Grand juries typically sit for a period of time.)

In this case, however, charges have been dismissed. There are several variants here, one is "dismissed with prejudice", which means that those specific charges cannot be applied again. TFA doesn't note this (or indeed much else of substance in this case), so the presumption is that charges are dismissed without prejudice.

What is notable here is that grand juries almost always vote to indict. This isn't a verdict of "guilty", but rather, a finding of sufficient cause to bring trial. As the saying goes, "a grand jury can indict a ham sandwich",[1] that is, overwhelmingly (apparently 95%+ of the time) a prosecutor easily convinces a grand jury to file charges.

Given that grand jury proceedings are usually secret (there are exceptions), and we have no further insight as to what the basis of this decision was, there's not much inference which can be made, though I'd lean more strongly to weak evidence than any specific anti-Flock backlash, much as I'd prefer to believe the latter.[3][4]

________________________________

Notes:

1. Sol Wachtler: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sol_Wachtler>

2. On grand juries, generally: <https://legalknowledgebase.com/what-does-it-mean-when-a-gran...>

3. On dismissal of charges: <https://andrewalpert.com/blog/what-does-dismissed-with-preju...>

Grand jury declines to indict Ohio man charged with destroying Flock camera