Bill Cosby to Be Freed as Court Overturns His Sex Assault Conviction(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Bill Cosby to Be Freed as Court Overturns His Sex Assault Conviction
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/30/arts/television/bill-cosby-release-conviction.html
30 comments
Court correctly overturned the conviction with prejudice because the DA's office and the prosecutors made colossal mistakes. Agree it's horrible for the victims and unfair in our hearts but the justice system works (ideally) in an objective matter. The lives and money this cost though...
Yeah, but look at the alternative: the DA lied to Bill Cosby get a confession and witness statement from him (to be used against another).
If the DA lies they can (and will, as they've done in the past, one might add) imprison anyone with whatever excuse is most convenient. For political reasons, for suspicions, for whatever reasons.
If the DA lies they can (and will, as they've done in the past, one might add) imprison anyone with whatever excuse is most convenient. For political reasons, for suspicions, for whatever reasons.
Prosecutorial mistakes. A failure of the justice system.
The article doesn't get into any of the reasons. Do you have a link to something that explains why?
Yes it does.
From the article:
In their 79-page opinion, the judges wrote that a “non-prosecution agreement” struck with a previous prosecutor meant that he should not have been charged in the case, and that Mr. Cosby should be discharged. They barred a retrial in the case.
In 2005, Mr. Cosby was investigated in the case of Ms. Constand, and a former district attorney of Montgomery County had given Mr. Cosby his assurance that he would not be charged in the case. The former district attorney, Bruce Castor Jr., has testified that while there was insufficient evidence to bring a criminal prosecution, he had given Mr. Cosby the assurance to encourage him to testify in a subsequent civil case brought by Ms. Constand.
In that testimony, Mr. Cosby acknowledged giving quaaludes to women he was pursuing for sex — evidence that played a key part in his trial after Mr. Castor’s successors reopened the case and charged Mr. Cosby in December 2015.
From the article:
In their 79-page opinion, the judges wrote that a “non-prosecution agreement” struck with a previous prosecutor meant that he should not have been charged in the case, and that Mr. Cosby should be discharged. They barred a retrial in the case.
In 2005, Mr. Cosby was investigated in the case of Ms. Constand, and a former district attorney of Montgomery County had given Mr. Cosby his assurance that he would not be charged in the case. The former district attorney, Bruce Castor Jr., has testified that while there was insufficient evidence to bring a criminal prosecution, he had given Mr. Cosby the assurance to encourage him to testify in a subsequent civil case brought by Ms. Constand.
In that testimony, Mr. Cosby acknowledged giving quaaludes to women he was pursuing for sex — evidence that played a key part in his trial after Mr. Castor’s successors reopened the case and charged Mr. Cosby in December 2015.
So weird. I swear the latter part of the article wasn't loading when I clicked on it yesterday
I saw a different article (sorry, don't have the link handy) that said that a previous agreement with the prosecutor barred Cosby from being prosecuted in this case.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Bill Cosby, Brock Turner, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Jeffrey Epstein... If you have the right pedigree, you get a rape pass. All 4 relied on inebriation.
So let me make sure I'm reading this right: prosecutor says, "testify in this civil case, and you will not be criminally prosecuted." Cosby testifies in civil case, prosecutor takes Cosby's testimony from civil case and uses it as the basis for criminal prosecution.
<insert standard disclaimer>, but yeah, let the guy walk; and disbar the scumbag prosecutor while we're at it. Disbar if not for being a scumbag, but for being grossly incompetent if nothing else. IANAL, so maybe that's why I can't see how anyone involved thought this would end well.
<insert standard disclaimer>, but yeah, let the guy walk; and disbar the scumbag prosecutor while we're at it. Disbar if not for being a scumbag, but for being grossly incompetent if nothing else. IANAL, so maybe that's why I can't see how anyone involved thought this would end well.
A bit more specifically, because Cosby was no longer facing criminal charges, he was not eligible to plead the 5th amendment in the under-oath depositions he was required to make on the civil cases, so he didn't and he admitted to giving women quaaludes, etc. If the DA's office had not informed Cosby that they were dropping the criminal charges, Cosby would not have been forced to make those incriminating statements.
"scumbag prosecutor" is not fair. I don't know him or her, and I'm sure you don't either.
Based on my not-a-lawyer experience, it is very likely that at every stage the prosecution team was going for exactly what they though they could prove in court at the time. They can't predict what evidence may come out in the future, and they can't predict how Judges will interpret the facts.
There were many victims. Not prosecuting one doesn't mean they can't for the others.
Based on my not-a-lawyer experience, it is very likely that at every stage the prosecution team was going for exactly what they though they could prove in court at the time. They can't predict what evidence may come out in the future, and they can't predict how Judges will interpret the facts.
There were many victims. Not prosecuting one doesn't mean they can't for the others.
"scumbag prosecutor" is not fair.
They reneged on the deal, and a conviction with a prison sentence was the result. I thought "scumbag" was the more polite option, frankly, but what word would you prefer? Not that I'll not stick with "scumbag", but I'm always open to new, perhaps more creative options.
They reneged on the deal, and a conviction with a prison sentence was the result. I thought "scumbag" was the more polite option, frankly, but what word would you prefer? Not that I'll not stick with "scumbag", but I'm always open to new, perhaps more creative options.
uhm, do you remember who they were prosecuting?
The fact that they had to make a deal with Cosby to get him to testify indicates that they didn't have a strong case against him.
Scumbag prosecutor. The greatest threat to civil Liberty is not the police, it is the prosecutors who are immune from liability even if they break the law and put an innocent person in jail. We must remove immunity from both prosecutors and judges.
> even if they break the law and put an innocent person in jail
Which innocent person are you talking about here?
Which innocent person are you talking about here?
Cosby is legally innocent. He made a deal with the state and the state lied. If the state doesn't keep its agreements, the government is a sham.
"Found not guilty" and "innocent" are not the same thing. "Conviction overturned because of prosecutorial mistakes" and "innocent" aren't even in the same ballpark. Nobody is questioning whether Cosby did it—the evidence at the heart of this is his admission that he did. The issue is whether that evidence could be used in his conviction.
> Cosby is legally innocent
I feel this captures the extent of what you're saying, unless we're making an implicit claim about "using the word innocent in this context has X,Y,Z societal side effects", etc etc
I feel this captures the extent of what you're saying, unless we're making an implicit claim about "using the word innocent in this context has X,Y,Z societal side effects", etc etc
Using the word "innocent" implies that they didn't do what they are accused of.
Different prosecutors.
The gist is that Cosby had an agreement with the prior DA that they wouldn't charge him and the future DA reneged.
"The collective weight of these considerations led D.A. Castor to conclude that, unless Cosby confessed, “there was insufficient credible and admissible evidence upon which any charge against Mr. Cosby related to the Constand incident could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Seeking “some measure of justice” for Constand, D.A. Castor decided that the Commonwealth would decline to prosecute Cosby for the incident involving Constand, thereby allowing Cosby to be forced to testify in a subsequent civil action, under penalty of perjury, without the benefit of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
Unable to invoke any right not to testify in the civil proceedings, Cosby relied upon the district attorney’s declination and proceeded to provide four sworn depositions. During those depositions, Cosby made several incriminating statements. D.A. Castor’s successors did not feel bound by his decision, and decided to prosecute Cosby notwithstanding that prior undertaking. The fruits of Cosby’s reliance upon D.A. Castor’s decisionCosby’s sworn inculpatory testimonywere then used by D.A. Castor’s successors against Cosby at Cosby’s criminal trial. We granted allowance of appeal to determine whether D.A. Castor’s decision not to prosecute Cosby in exchange for his testimony must be enforced against the Commonwealth.
...
When an unconditional charging decision is made publicly and with the intent to induce action and reliance by the defendant, and when the defendant does so to his detriment (and in some instances upon the advice of counsel), denying the defendant the benefit of that decision is an affront to fundamental fairness, particularly when it results in a criminal prosecution that was foregone for more than a decade. No mere changing of the guard strips that circumstance of its inequity."
https://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/J-100-20...
"The collective weight of these considerations led D.A. Castor to conclude that, unless Cosby confessed, “there was insufficient credible and admissible evidence upon which any charge against Mr. Cosby related to the Constand incident could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Seeking “some measure of justice” for Constand, D.A. Castor decided that the Commonwealth would decline to prosecute Cosby for the incident involving Constand, thereby allowing Cosby to be forced to testify in a subsequent civil action, under penalty of perjury, without the benefit of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
Unable to invoke any right not to testify in the civil proceedings, Cosby relied upon the district attorney’s declination and proceeded to provide four sworn depositions. During those depositions, Cosby made several incriminating statements. D.A. Castor’s successors did not feel bound by his decision, and decided to prosecute Cosby notwithstanding that prior undertaking. The fruits of Cosby’s reliance upon D.A. Castor’s decisionCosby’s sworn inculpatory testimonywere then used by D.A. Castor’s successors against Cosby at Cosby’s criminal trial. We granted allowance of appeal to determine whether D.A. Castor’s decision not to prosecute Cosby in exchange for his testimony must be enforced against the Commonwealth.
...
When an unconditional charging decision is made publicly and with the intent to induce action and reliance by the defendant, and when the defendant does so to his detriment (and in some instances upon the advice of counsel), denying the defendant the benefit of that decision is an affront to fundamental fairness, particularly when it results in a criminal prosecution that was foregone for more than a decade. No mere changing of the guard strips that circumstance of its inequity."
https://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/J-100-20...
[deleted]
I think Cosby is a sexual predator but I also don’t believe that someone should be sent to jail just on the word of witnesses. There has to be some corroborating evidence and I didn’t hear any in the trial.
If that standard were applied there would be almost no rape or sexual molestation convictions at all. There is usually very little evidence.
Then change the law. Don’t break the law, and manipulate juries and courts, just because you (meaning the prosecutor) feel personally that someone is guilty.
> Then change the law.
Aren't you the one trying to change the law here by requiring corroborating evidence in all cases?
Aren't you the one trying to change the law here by requiring corroborating evidence in all cases?
tldr:
DA1 says "we won't prosecute, so what did you do?"
BC says "oh I did X, Y, and Z"
DA2 says "gottem! we're charging you for X, Y, and Z"
PA Supreme Court says "err, yeah you can't do that. you can leave BC"
DA1 says "we won't prosecute, so what did you do?"
BC says "oh I did X, Y, and Z"
DA2 says "gottem! we're charging you for X, Y, and Z"
PA Supreme Court says "err, yeah you can't do that. you can leave BC"