Theoretically, the prosecution may prove 3 of 4 elements of Crime X 'beyond a reasonable doubt, and to a moral certainty', but fail to prove the 4th. In such a case, a judge is ethically and legally required to enter either a verdict of 'not guilty', or dismiss the charge altogether without letting the case go to the jury. Furthermore, even if the judge does allow the case to go to the jury, the judge may, upon a defendant's motion, enter a J.N.O.V. (judgment 'non obstante veredicto'), overturning a jury's guilty verdict in a criminal trial; this occurrence, while rare, is an admission by the court that the court should have directed the jury to find the defendant not guilty.

The judge in this case may well believe that Officer Weekley is guilty, in a moral sense, but also believe that the prosecution has not sustained its burden in proving its case.

nothing to go to trial about. I understand what your saying but it seems fishy that the prosecution couldn't put on a case.

I hear you loud and clear.

The prosecution is appealing the judge's ruling, which is rare enough.

They must've threatened to expose this judges mistress or worse.

Their own.