Young lady who is obviously a lawyer explains it better than I could on youtube. I have a pretty good bit of legal knowledge as I used to be married a lawyer (don't ever do it). Any lawyers here feel free to expound.
"DNA was not a factor in this case because they didn’t prosecute based on DNA but on evidence of a sexual assault. It was sexual assault because the girl was not in a condition to give consent. He wasn’t charged with rape. He was charged with criminal sexual conduct with a minor and on that charge, he got a disposition of “Noelle prosequi”. "Nolle Prosequi means the prosecutor has decided not to prosecute you on the charge. This sometimes happens when the prosecution feels that their case is weak (there are other reasons as well). It's similar to a dismissal, but the prosecution can still bring the charge again within the statute of limitations (often 1 year in Virginia). That may happen if they get more evidence to support the charge." He was not found not guilty and the charges were not dismissed. He was NOT exonerated by DNA. The victim was uncooperative and the DA chose not to prosecute but they left themselves the option to reopen the case should she start cooperating within a certain amount of time. That’s EXACTLY what the DA said: “South Carolina law is clear that once a defendant enters plea negotiations and a plea agreement is accepted by the court, due process requires the State to honor the agreement,” wrote Wilson, who became the 9th Circuit Solicitor in 2007. “We are duty-bound to honor the agreement in this case. “The State’s prosecution has ended, and the dismissed charge against Mr. McKelvey will not be resurrected.” In 2001, a then-22-year-old McKelvey was accused of “willfully, unlawfully and feloniously engage in penile/vaginal intercourse with a fifteen year old female child” at a party he threw in Summerville, according to the indictment. The indictment describes how a friend of the 15-year-old found her in a “room ... naked and crying, stating she had been raped.” After calling 911, the girls were taken to an area hospital where the “staff corroborated that a sexual assault had occurred.” McKelvey was soon arrested and charged. However, the case failed to move forward, and “the plea was negotiated because the alleged victim in the matter did not cooperate with the prosecutor,” Wilson said. According to Wilson, the plea deal was made because of the girl’s “absence.” The girl’s mother recently said she was the reason why her daughter stalled the case."
"Kingston Hawke, go on a computer and watch the video you are commenting on so you can see the actual paperwork. You are quoting from Charlemagnes version of the story when you said he turned himself in. He was arrested on a warrant. He also got three years conditional probation. You should really familiarize yourself with the established facts for a better understanding. The case wasn't prosecuted based on DNA, nowhere in the paperwork does it say anything about DNA or semen, which it would've if that had been the basis for the charge. The indictment doesn't have any language about DNA or genetic markers and it DEFINITELY would have if that had been the basis for the indictment. The charge was based on the condition the police observed those two minors to be in. They could not give consent in that condition and any evidence of sexual intercourse, including spermicide from a condom, would have been evidence of a sexual assault. According to the paperwork, the hospital found evidence of a sexual assault and when the apartment complexes management let police in, they found more evidence to corroborate the girls' story, including the victim's bracelet in a bedroom next to the bed. And I do have a reeeeeeaaaaaalllly reaallllly good idea how the legal system works, lmao."
Another lawyer chimes in "
"If the agreement was contingent on them not reopening the case, then they don't have room to reopen the case, arguably speaking. Jessica could appeal this decision on various grounds. I wonder why he wasn't actually indicted for rape, though, in light of the police reports. The police report clearly described forcible rape, yet the indictment was for "statutory rape". I'd say that there was prosecutorial mishandling of this case from its inception, but prosecutorial discretion probably allowed it."
Her response:
Kwame- I am wondering the same thing. The other thing that really struck me was Star didn’t have this in the video and I hadn’t heard about this till I read the article: “The indictment describes how a friend of the 15-year-old found her in a “room ... naked and crying, stating she had been raped.” After calling 911, the girls were taken to an area hospital where the “staff corroborated that a sexual assault had occurred.” It makes absolutely NO sense that he basically got a child molestation charge for this.