What does Nolle Prosequi mean?
Fatal Flaw
In criminal cases, nolle prosequi may be employed when there is a significant weakness in the prosecution’s case, when the prosecutor acknowledges an inability to prove the charges, or even when the prosecutor has lost confidence in the defendant’s guilt.
Dropped
Nolle prosequi is a formal statement issued by a prosecutor in a criminal proceeding or by a plaintiff in a civil case indicating that the prosecution or plaintiff has decided to discontinue the case against the defendant.
In criminal cases, nolle prosequi can be invoked when there is a significant flaw in the prosecution’s case, when the prosecutor acknowledges an inability to prove the charges, or when the prosecutor comes to doubt the defendant’s guilt.
Nolle Prosequi and Double Jeopardy
Nolle prosequi is a formal decision to terminate a civil or criminal case through voluntary dismissal. In the context of a criminal case, this action effectively removes the charges without prejudice, meaning the prosecutor retains the right to re-file the same charges in the future. Since this type of discontinuation does not result in a judgment or verdict regarding the merits of the case, double jeopardy does not apply; the defendant has not been tried for the charges that were dropped.
There are various reasons a prosecutor might choose to file a motion for nolle prosequi. In some jurisdictions, the prosecutor has the authority to dismiss criminal charges independently, while in others, a formal motion for nolle prosequi must be presented to the court for approval. Among the prevalent reasons for seeking a nolle prosequi are considerations such as insufficient evidence, witness unavailability, or new developments in the case.
When you get a Motion for Nollie Pros – You know you hired the right Attorney
We got 3 today (March 4, 2026)
March 4, 2026
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED:
☒ 1. Motion for nolle prosequi is granted and the case is dismissed without prejudice.
☐ 2. Motion for nolle prosequi is granted as to the following charge(s), which are dismissed without prejudice:
☐ 3. Motion for nolle prosequi is denied.
☐ 4. Defendant/Juvenile shall be immediately discharged from confinement in this case.
☐ 5. Bond is canceled and shall be returned after costs are deducted.
☐ 6. Bond is continued on the remaining charge(s).
☒ 7. The Michigan State Police and arresting agency shall destroy the arrest record, biometric data, and, as applicable, DNA
profile for the dismissed charge(s). The Michigan State Police shall also remove any LEIN entry concerning any
dismissed charge(s).
Komorn Law, founded in 1993, brings decades of seasoned experience to Michigan’s most complex criminal and regulatory matters, including the evolving cannabis framework from the MMMA to today’s MRTMA landscape. The firm represents clients facing controlled‑substance offenses, DUI and drug‑related driving charges, firearm violations, property crimes, resisting or obstructing, and the most serious allegations such as manslaughter and homicide. With a proven record in courts across Michigan and the federal system, Komorn Law delivers strategic, relentless advocacy when the stakes are highest. To work with a firm that truly refuses to back down, call 248-357-2550.
More Articles
Michigan Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Cases – Threat of Terrorism
Case Summary In People v Kvasnicka, the defendant sent a message to a young girl stating she “would not be laughing”...
Michigan Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Cases – Prisoner in Possession
Prisoner in Possession of a Controlled SubstanceCase Summary In People v Tadgerson, the Michigan Supreme Court...
Michigan Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Cases – Threat of Terrorism
Case Summary In People v Kvasnicka, the defendant sent a message to a young girl stating she “would not be laughing”...
What is a Franks Hearing?
What is a Frank's Hearing?A Franks hearing is a critical legal tool used when a defendant claims that police lied,...
More
Michigan Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Cases – Threat of Terrorism
Case Summary In People v Kvasnicka, the defendant sent a message to a young girl stating she “would not be laughing” when he came to her school to “shoot it up or blow it up like Columbine.” Charged under Michigan’s threat‑of‑terrorism statute, he argued the law was...
What is a Franks Hearing?
What is a Frank's Hearing?A Franks hearing is a critical legal tool used when a defendant claims that police lied, exaggerated, or recklessly disregarded the truth in a search warrant affidavit. When law enforcement places its hand on the Constitution, the law...
Michigan House Bill Proposes 32% Tax on Internet Devices for Kids
Taxed Again..? They're working on it.A newly introduced Michigan House bill would impose a 32% excise tax on smartphones, tablets, gaming systems, and other internet‑connected devices marketed to or primarily used by minors. Lawmakers backing the proposal argue the...
Shadow cash is corrupting Michigan courtrooms
The Shadow Cash Threat: Protecting the Integrity of Michigan Courtrooms In recent months, a spotlight has been cast on a hidden influence within the Michigan legal system: "shadow cash." This term refers to third-party litigation funding (TPLF), where outside...
Michigan judge charged in stealing from incapacitated adults
No Good Headline to Lead with HereSummary Federal prosecutors have charged a 36th District Court judge and three associates with orchestrating a long‑running financial scheme that diverted funds from incapacitated adults under court‑appointed guardianship. The...
Michigan Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Cases – Prisoner in Possession
Prisoner in Possession of a Controlled SubstanceCase Summary In People v Tadgerson, the Michigan Supreme Court addressed a critical question: does the crime of a prisoner possessing a controlled substance under MCL 800.281(4) require proof of intent, or is it a...















