After a recent re-examination and evaluation of the totality of the evidence brought before the court, as well as following further inquiries and examinations conducted by the accuser to date, the accuser reached the conclusion that in this case it would not be possible to rely on the incriminating material in the evidence to a sufficient extent to establish a conviction in a criminal trial against the defendant.
Therefore, the accuser retracts the indictment and seeks to acquit the defendant.
Counsel for the appellant responded to this notice by writing to the court that he "wishes to be acquitted in light of the withdrawal of the charge", and the court did indeed decide to acquit the appellant.
- After these things, the appellant asked for a house-The law that will obligate the state and the complainant to pay him his defense expenses and compensation for his arrest. The appellant relied on the two grounds enumerated in the law: one, that "there was no basis for the accusation" and two, that there were "other circumstances justifying it." Aside from the general arguments that he claimed, he came to rely-The appellant's motion for negligence, according to him, fell in the examination conducted by the police on the subject of the pregnancy, and in the partial examination – an examination that was conducted for both classes – with regard to the alibi claim raised by the appellant. Yes, he claimed.-the appellant's argument that the appellant's acquittal of guilt was an absolute acquittal; that he suffered severe damage due to being detained for 70 days, and that he was unable to work for a long period of time due to being confined to his home on-According to a House Decision-The Trial.
Counsel for the State responded to the arguments of counsel for the appellant, on the first and the last, and in her arguments she emphasized that the state withdrew the charge for only one reason, and that is that "when we stand before the court and seek to convict, we want to be assured that even in our own hearts there is no doubt, not even the slightest doubt in this matter." Counsel for the State further argued as follows: