I went to law school watching Leland McKenzie, Arnie Becker, Victor Sifuentes, et al.
I hear the court saying "Our evaluation of the events and evidence leads us to conclude that reasonable people could argue you committed a crime. However, our assessments of the resources necessary to make the arguement and the probability that the arguement prevails, viewed in light of justice for the alleged victims and the people, is such that we're willing to adjourn with an eye toward dismissal. This is a right the court reserves. You'd better behave."
What did he do wrong? He was involved in a bar ruckus.
I understand you to be asking a question from the point of view that recognizes either he's guilty or he's not. The court reserves a Purgatory for some it hasn't found to be either. The Purgatory comes with conditions and inhabitants are at risk.
I don't know if the defendant is required to accept this finding or if the defendant can insist the case go forward. I believe he'd be wise to accept, if it's a decision available to him.