One can understand why the legal system would be initially reticent to rule that conflicting truths can't exist in separate cases. New facts emerge, different teams may come to different conclusions, etc. You don't necessarily want a situation where one single incongruity between different prosecutions leads to mistrial or overturning verdicts. But, unfortunately, and entirely forrseeably, this allowance becomes totally abused. As the article says, stuff like this becomes a matter of gamesmanship, in which abuse of the system is almost seen as a sign of one's cleverness as a prosecutor.

The more I learn about the way specifically criminal law often operates, the more disturbing it is. If people knew half of what I've learned just through relatively casual reading, they would understand just how fragile their place as an upstanding citizen is in society, have a lot more sympathy for those caught up in the criminal justice system, and be far less wont to advocate the kind of treatment people meet in that system.