I’d say dismissals with or without prejudice goes to law of the case doctrine and issue preclusion. Those doctrines are about whether the prosecution is legally able to relitigate something that was already decided under the law, in the interests of judicial economy and finality of judgments.

Freedom from double jeopardy on the other hand is a constitutional right and attaches specifically when a jury is empaneled and sworn in. Before that, the defendant is not “in jeopardy.” If a case never made it to a jury, a subsequent prosecution is not double jeopardy.

If a case is dismissed after a jury is sworn, it is the consequence of jeopardy that makes the dismissal one with prejudice.

Fair point, yeah I would think his legal team will be trying anything for another dismissal.

*champing at the bit

It’s a common phrase that’s often said incorrectly. What’s the difference between “champing at the bit” and “chomping at the bit”? Which one is correct?

It’s champing at the bit, not chomping at the bit.

This phrase (or idiom) comes from the sport of kings: horse racing. A bit is part of the apparatus that goes in the horse’s mouth and connects to the bridle and reins so the horse can be controlled and directed by the jockey on its back. The bit fits into a toothless ridge of the horse’s mouth, so the horse never really bites the bit. But it can grind his teeth or jaw against the bit, and if it does, it means that the horse is either nervous, or really excited about racing. That’s how the phrase “champing at the bit” entered everyday communications: to indicate extreme eagerness.