• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Bill Cosby trial

PhantomWolf said:
In a civil trial, you are expected to answer the question truthfully, with the proviso that if an answer would invoke criminality you can plead the 5th. With prosecution taken off the table, then there is no ability to plead the 5th and so answers are expected. Now I suppose you could say that he could have lied at the depositions, but that would potentially create a perjury charge.
Click to expand...
And definitively revoke the promise of not being prosecuted.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
And definitively revoke the promise of not being prosecuted.
Click to expand...

This is debatable since the reason that the prosecution was taken off the table was that the Prosecutor didn't think he had a strong enough case to win, so even had Cosby lied, that still likely would have been a problem. Even with the deposition testimony being used the result was a hung jury, and it wasn't until other witnesses were brought in with the second trial to create a pattern of abuse was a guilty verdict gained. Given that, I'd say a prosecution because he lied would have been unlikely, though one for lying might have been possible depending on how blatant the lying was.
 
Last edited:
Not following. I said "revoke the promise of not being prosecuted". You seem to be replying to "would have lead to prosecution.".
 
Well revoking the promise would generally be followed by prosecuting. If you meant that the promise would be revoked but no prosection would likely occur, then fine, but failing to act on the revoking and not revoking would effectively be the same in that case.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Well revoking the promise would generally be followed by prosecuting. If you meant that the promise would be revoked but no prosection would likely occur, then fine, but failing to act on the revoking and not revoking would effectively be the same in that case.
Click to expand...
Except Cosby might not know that or think that. Given that Cosby actually testified in return for this promise it's reasonable to think that the promise actually meant something to Cosby.

My point is small and simple: Cosby's motivation to not lie on the stand isn't likely to be the threat of a perjury charge. He could have avoided any risk of perjury by simply not agreeing to testify. His reason not to lie has to be that he valued that promise of non-prosecution.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
Except Cosby might not know that or think that. Given that Cosby actually testified in return for this promise it's reasonable to think that the promise actually meant something to Cosby.

My point is small and simple: Cosby's motivation to not lie on the stand isn't likely to be the threat of a perjury charge. He could have avoided any risk of perjury by simply not agreeing to testify. His reason not to lie has to be that he valued that promise of non-prosecution.
Click to expand...

Except in a civil case you can't. Refusing a deposition will land you with contempt of court charge.
 
If you are summoned to testify in a Deposition Hearing you have four choices:

1) Testify Honestly
2) If your testimony could be used against you to establish criminality, plead the 5th
3) Perjure yourself and risk Perjury Charges
4) Refuse and risk Contempt of Court Charges.

If you have been granted immunity to prosection, #2 goes away leaving you three options.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
??? Not seeing your point. He chose immunity based on what the prosecutor told him.
Click to expand...

My point is that there was no option to lie. He didn't choose "not to lie" by accepting the deal, he gave up the option to plead the 5th by accepting the deal. Lying is never a good option at a deposition.

The suggestion that started this was the Cosby bought his immunity with a settlement, and the question is what he got out of it. He could have pled the 5th in the Civil trial and potentially avoided both the Criminal Case and the Civil Penalty. In accepting the immunity deal he was also accepting that he'd probably have to settle the civil case. He took a deal that guaranteed non-prosecution for that, but that's what he was offered, he didn't buy his way out of it as was suggested. Basically what he got out of it was the best deal on the table. And even that backfired to some extent because the prosecution office later renedged on the deal.
 
I plan on listening to the Opening Arguments podcast later today.

Until then, my impression is that any testimony or admissions given by Cosby in the civil procedure, given his impression he would not be prosecuted criminally, and any evidence that followed from that testimony (fruit of the poisonous tree), would have been inadmissible in a new trial. But I don’t get the state Supreme Court banning a retrial. Seems like overreach to me, given there may have been sufficient evidence against him without said admissions.

The only consolation to victims is that nearly 3 years incarceration for a man of his age and condition is not nothing.
 
Last edited:
Yeah seems a tad strange that they didn’t declare it a mistrial and throw the prosecution decision back to the state prosecutors?

Perhaps in that state they can’t declare it a mistrial?
 
Fast Eddie B said:
I plan on listening to the Opening Arguments podcast later today.

Until then, my impression is that any testimony or admissions given by Cosby in the civil procedure, given his impression he would not be prosecuted criminally, and any evidence that followed from that testimony (fruit of the poisonous tree), would have been inadmissible in a new trial. But I don’t get the state Supreme Court banning a retrial. Seems like overreach to me, given there may have been sufficient evidence against him without said admissions.

The only consolation to victims is that nearly 3 years incarceration for a man of his age and condition is not nothing.
Click to expand...

Darat said:
Yeah seems a tad strange that they didn’t declare it a mistrial and throw the prosecution decision back to the state prosecutors?

Perhaps in that state they can’t declare it a mistrial?
Click to expand...
My guess is, the prosecutor's error has so tainted the case, and the defendant, that a fair trial is no longer possible.

One way to look at this turn of events is to say, "yes, but how can we work this so that the accused still gets what he deserves?"

Another way to look at it is to say, "how can we best uphold our commitment to the integrity of our justice system?"

Honestly in cases of prosecutorial misconduct I'm much more concerned about the latter than the former.
 
Last edited:
angrysoba said:
So does this make Cosby technically not-guilty? The best kind of not-guilty?
Click to expand...

There's probably some complicated legal definition of exactly what this means for Cosby's conviction.

The way I see it, this makes him immune to the state of Pennsylvania's attempts to take away his freedom because of the crimes we're all pretty sure he committed.

Whether or not that counts as "not guilty", technically or otherwise, is probably up to each of us to decide for themselves.
 
theprestige said:
There's probably some complicated legal definition of exactly what this means for Cosby's conviction.
Click to expand...

I just listened to the Opening Arguments podcast.

I think it was the DA or one of the prosecutors who said that with the setting aside of the jury’s verdict, Cosby’s presumption of innocence would be reinstated. Or words to that effect.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
Seems like overreach to me, given there may have been sufficient evidence against him without said admissions.
Click to expand...

Considering that there was a hung jury even with the admissions and it wasn't until they got in new witnesses to prove a pattern of offending that he was found guilty, not sure that this would be true. Especially since that was also appealed against, though the court didn't consider it because they decided that they didn't need to.

I would suggest that the order was for three reasons. First, it's a punishment for the overstep which could be seen as a violation of the 5th. Second, it's a reinstating of the promise made and relied on. And third, it's a statement that the court believes it would be hard to receive a fair trial at this point.
 
Looks like he's trying for a come-back.


Presumably he's chosen to start in the UK because no-one in the US will touch him with a barge-pole. And thinks we don't get US news at all...
 
Funny, I thought during the trial that he was represented as feeble and sick and at death's door, barely even able to walk.

Of course it would be infra dig to suggest that there was exaggeration there, so please, Mr. Cosby, won't you tell us your secret for rejuvenation? Was it the sweet smell of justice? The prospect of one more friend so lovingly relaxed? Grape seed extract?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom