I thought I remembered a rule that after a no-bill, a case needs new evidence to be heard again by a Grand Jury. But I cannot find anything that says that. Am I misremembering--and that was maybe a "should" versus "must"?

Look at McGuire v. State, 2012 WL 344952 out of the Houston First Court of Appeals and Shumake v. State, 502 SW2d 758 (Tex.Crim.App. 1973).

Of course, you are pretty much in control of whether the charge gets presented to a second grand jury and can adopt whatever policy choice you choose. You never present all of the available proof to a grand jury, so your second presentation will likely be somewhat more complete (and different). But, a no bill does not bode well for meeting the higher standard of proof at trial and the requirement of unanimity.

If it is a crummy case, I would consider the no bill a blessing. On the other hand, grand juries can misdirect themselves just like judges, prosecutors, and petit juries can. I recall a grand jury in Ft. Bend County that refused to indict anyone under age 25. They considered their policy to be evidence of their superior moral standards over the rest of us.

I agree with the weak case statement, but if you really believe in the case.....From a prior Motion in Limine - "“A prior ‘no bill’ by grand jury is not material in any way to the defense of a case. This evidence was properly excluded.” Smith v. State, 474 S.W.2d 486, 489 (Tex. Crim. App. 1971) rehearing denied. Because the no one can discuss what actual evidence was presented when an indictment was either no-billed or passed, because one Grand Jury could legally indict on the same evidence that another did not indict {Shumake v. State, 502 S.W.2d 758, 760 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973)}, because only the statute of limitations limits the Grand Jury in that situation, because “no issue of ultimate fact has been determined by a valid and final judgment” (Id.), and because the evidence of each case can be presented to the Petit Jury to determine whether the burden of proof has been met, stating that a charge against the Defendant has been “no-billed” or “passed” would lead to confusion and defeat the fact finding duty of the jury. "