Update open charge labels

[hmarcks]

Trying to bring more clarity when there is an open case(s). Michael confirmed we can refer to charges as eligible as well even though it's technically the case that is open.

@KentShikama we talked about this in the meeting today and wanted to get you thoughts.

[wittejm]

pinging @KentShikama again on this, since I recall you spent some time a few weeks ago trying to craft your favored wording on this. My thoughts are: The current version and @hmarcks new options have about the same clarity on what they actually mean, but I like the increased brevity of the latter.

[KentShikama]

What would it look like if there are multiple eligibility dates? "Eligible Jun 22, 2013 if open charge dismissed or eligible Jun 1, 2015 if open charge dismissed or 10 years from conviction of last open charge"?

[wittejm]

Could you remind me what situation this can occur in?

[wittejm]

Also with the current version would this example show as:

"Eligibility Timeframe Dependent On Open Charge: Eligible Jun 22, 2013 or Jun 1, 2015 or 10 years From Conviction Of Open Charge"?

That does seem somewhat nicer.

[hmarcks]

Added an example for multiple dates

[KentShikama]

We will need to figure out how to elegantly group dates that are "influenced by" open charge dismissals (and no open charge convictions). This may be related to #1286.