Bill Cosby trial

[theprestige]

Apparently the PA Supreme court disagrees? I mean there are iron clad signed contracts but there are also verbal contracts that are enforceable. If people are on the same page that a deal is done, then it's done, whether or not there is a signed contract or you've gone in front of a judge. What makes this kind of contract special? Just because people have been doing that doesn't make it the minimum bar for enforcement. It's entirely possible the minimum standard differs from the common standard people use to CYA.

If I were the PA Supreme Court, I might agree that the deal wasn't binding on future DAs, and then blame the guy who "made" the deal for misleading the defendant. This goes back to the question of whether it's the defendant's job, legally, to make sure the DA has offered them a valid and binding deal. And on that point, the PA court says, no, it isn't the defendant's job. The DA at the time said there was a deal. The defendant took him at his word. His word was false, so now the defendant is off the hook.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

on the question of what was reasonable for Mr. Cosby

"Not only was Cosby’s reliance upon the conclusions and advice of his attorneys reasonable, it was consistent with a core purpose of the right to counsel.

To hold otherwise would recast our understanding of reasonableness into something unrecognizable and unsustainable under our law. If Cosby’s reliance was unreasonable, as found by the lower courts and as suggested by the Commonwealth, then reasonableness would require a defendant in a similar position to disbelieve an elected district attorney’s public statement and to discount the experience and wisdom of his own counsel. This notion of reasonableness would be manifestly unjust in this context. Defendants, judges, and the public would be forced to assume fraud or deceit by the prosecutor. The attorney-client relationship would be predicated upon mistrust, and the defendant would be forced to navigate the criminal justice process on his own, despite the substantial deficit in the critical knowledge that is necessary in order to do so, as so compellingly explained by Justice Black." Link to the decision. See pp. 69-70.

 

[theprestige]

Interesting. So a man who represents himself in court has a fool for a client. But a man who hires a fool in good faith is off the hook.

 

[Vixen]

What the prosecutors did was procedurally unfair. Likewise, because of legal precedent, Weinstein now has an opportunity to appeal on similar grounds insofar people who had nothing to do with his charges were allowed to come along and testify against him. This overturn may also enable Ghislaine Maxwell to pursue an application that her case should be dismissed on the grounds she had considered herself immune after Epstein's Acosta trial (for which he got a lenient sentence and was allowed to visit his office every day), although she wasn't named as a co-conspirator, so that might be trickier.

Once a verdict has finalised it seems unfair for another prosecutor from somewhere else to reopen it, especially if many years have passed. Justice delayed is justice denied.

 

[theprestige]

I don't think what the prosecutors did was procedurally unfair. I think they were blindsided by their predecessor's **** up just like the rest of us.

Also I think "procedurally unfair" is an oxymoron.

 

[PhantomWolf]

What the prosecutors did was procedurally unfair. Likewise, because of legal precedent, Weinstein now has an opportunity to appeal on similar grounds insofar people who had nothing to do with his charges were allowed to come along and testify against him. This overturn may also enable Ghislaine Maxwell to pursue an application that her case should be dismissed on the grounds she had considered herself immune after Epstein's Acosta trial (for which he got a lenient sentence and was allowed to visit his office every day), although she wasn't named as a co-conspirator, so that might be trickier.

Once a verdict has finalised it seems unfair for another prosecutor from somewhere else to reopen it, especially if many years have passed. Justice delayed is justice denied.

First off, this ruling only applies to Pennsylvania, but assuming they tried to use it in New York, well this highlighted part is irrelevant as that's not what the Cosby Case turned on.

The reason Cosby has been let go is not that the DA called in others to try and establish a pattern of offending, but rather that a previous DA had granted him immunity to prosecution in return for his testimony in a civil case. Because Cosby then gave that testimony without pleading the 5th, on the belief he was immune to being prosecuted, he essentially gave up the right to not self-incriminate. To then allow a new DA to take that testimony and use it against him was a pretty major violation of the 5th Amendment which states that no person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

To have allowed this to stand would have undermined the entire legal system where immunity deals are offered and testimony expected in return. Even though this was a done as a gentleman's agreement, it was strong enough that Cosby's lawyers and clearly Cosby himself believed it to be legally binding, and so the Court has, correctly, upheld it. To have not done so would allow DAs to offer immunity verbally, but then renege on the deal after getting incriminating testimony from the person. That would pretty much result in the scrapping of the 5th or no one accepting immunity deals.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I don't think what the prosecutors did was procedurally unfair. I think they were blindsided by their predecessor's **** up just like the rest of us.

Also I think "procedurally unfair" is an oxymoron.

I think that both prosecutors screwed this one up. The original one for not making sure that the deal was in writing and properly signed and witnessed. The second for being so blinded in getting a conviction he was willing to use unfair and likely unethical methods to gain it.

One way to prevent this sort of abuse in the future would be to ban the use of all civil cases testimony from being used in criminal proceedings. This would remove the ability for people to plead the 5th in civil cases and so lead to better outcomes in those and would also prevent the blatant workaround of the 5th by using people's civil testimony against them in criminal proceedings.

 

[Planigale]

What the prosecutors did was procedurally unfair. Likewise, because of legal precedent, Weinstein now has an opportunity to appeal on similar grounds insofar people who had nothing to do with his charges were allowed to come along and testify against him. This overturn may also enable Ghislaine Maxwell to pursue an application that her case should be dismissed on the grounds she had considered herself immune after Epstein's Acosta trial (for which he got a lenient sentence and was allowed to visit his office every day), although she wasn't named as a co-conspirator, so that might be trickier.

Once a verdict has finalised it seems unfair for another prosecutor from somewhere else to reopen it, especially if many years have passed. Justice delayed is justice denied.

Justice denied is justice denied which is what happened here. Justice delayed is justice denied because of the statute of limitations on the offences. If the state legislature wants to enable justice then they could repeal the statute of limitations to enable other victims cases to be prosecuted. This is not retrospective legislation. The crime was a crime when committed. The fact that people were afraid to bring a case against a rich and powerful man for many years is a phenomenon we see in many sex abuse cases. It is a consequence of the sort of power relationships common in sex crimes. I feel (though accept it might not be objectively justified) that having a statute of limitation on sex crimes is inherently sexist as the victims denied justice will be predominantly women and the perpetrators who are allowed to get away with it once they cease to be in a position of power will be predominantly men.

 

[Vixen]

Lawyers for Harvey Weinstein are already ready to seize on Cosby's overturning:

One part of Cosby's appeal was that the prosecution at his trial used five witnesses to testify about his character, even though they weren't involved in the actual charges at hand.

The same tactic was used by prosecutors at Weinstein's trial in 2020. He protested it, saying they shouldn't have been allowed to testify.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court did not rule on the issue in its decision, instead focusing only on the promise that was made to Cosby.

But Cosby's team - and Weinstein's - believe the fact he got out sets a precedent for others.

'It's a major issue. What we have always said is how can you bring women in from 30 years ago who had nothing to do with the trial to say something happened

'We were not allowed to examine them on the witness stand. This sets a precedent for so many cases. Even Harvey Weinstein now are using our same strategy.

DM

 

[Vixen]

Justice denied is justice denied which is what happened here. Justice delayed is justice denied because of the statute of limitations on the offences. If the state legislature wants to enable justice then they could repeal the statute of limitations to enable other victims cases to be prosecuted. This is not retrospective legislation. The crime was a crime when committed. The fact that people were afraid to bring a case against a rich and powerful man for many years is a phenomenon we see in many sex abuse cases. It is a consequence of the sort of power relationships common in sex crimes. I feel (though accept it might not be objectively justified) that having a statute of limitation on sex crimes is inherently sexist as the victims denied justice will be predominantly women and the perpetrators who are allowed to get away with it once they cease to be in a position of power will be predominantly men.

The vast majority of women (in the UK, anyway) are every day denied justice for sex crimes, with vanishingly small numbers brought to court, and then, hardly any convictions. I agree strongly with you that victims of sex crimes should have their perpetrators brought to court and justice meted out.

What I am resistant to is the introduction of politics and social movements such as #MeToo. There should be no place in a trial of an individual of attempts to bring about social change, such as Women's Lib or 'Get the Clintons'/'Get Trump' polemics. Mixed up with legal issues, it makes it difficult to establish exactly how the defendant is responsible for the crime he or she is charged with , and that alone. Not about how much they are hated or whether it's 'time to expose the sexual assaults happening in the film industry' even if it is twenty years after the event.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

I’ve not yet listened to it, but the latest Opening Arguments podcast (#504) is titled “Cosby Released in Nonsense Ruling”.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So... why did the original prosecutor agree to not charge Cosby? What was he getting out of it?

Cosby coming clean in a civil case.


Just heard some bizarro recording on the radio: a couple women screaming "We knew it" and "We love you sir" to Cosby as he left the prison.

I don't get it, I really don't.

 

[theprestige]

One way to prevent this sort of abuse in the future would be to ban the use of all civil cases testimony from being used in criminal proceedings. This would remove the ability for people to plead the 5th in civil cases and so lead to better outcomes in those and would also prevent the blatant workaround of the 5th by using people's civil testimony against them in criminal proceedings.

I think this is solving a completely different problem from the one the court considered.

 

[Darat]

Cosby coming clean in a civil case.


Just heard some bizarro recording on the radio: a couple women screaming "We knew it" and "We love you sir" to Cosby as he left the prison.

I don't get it, I really don't.

Yep - this isn't anything about his actual guilt, which was proven at the actual trial. This is a "procedural" issue.

 

[theprestige]

Not even "procedural". Just procedural.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

not surprising

Professor of Law Leroy Pernell wrote, "In 1971 the United States Supreme Court held that when a state makes a promise designed to cause an individual to give up their constitutional rights, that same State cannot then break the promise after the person has relied on it to his or her detriment. (Santobello v. New York). The Court reinforced that position in 1976 (Doyle v. Ohio). In the New York case the remedy the Court found was that the original promise must be kept, if possible. That the Pennsylvania Supreme Court 50 years later reiterates the same position is not “surprising.”

He continued, "The action of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was not a vindication of Bill Cosby or what a jury found that he did. Instead, it is the due process that we all should expect from our legal system."

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Maybe I've overlooked it, but could someone explain what Cosby got out of incriminating himself in the civil case, would he not have been better off denying everything there as well?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

To the best of my understanding

He would not have been allowed to invoke his 5th amendment right against self incrimination.

 

[erwinl]

Maybe I've overlooked it, but could someone explain what Cosby got out of incriminating himself in the civil case, would he not have been better off denying everything there as well?

If I’d approach it cynically, I’d say what he won was immunity from prosecution.

The way I see it, Bill Cosby got the promise from the prosecution. He went into the civil court, admitted everything which could be used against him in a criminal court, paid a few million and would never be afraid of any consequences. In essence he was buying his freedom and immunity.

Now, at first, things did not work out as planned, but in the end it did for him.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Maybe I've overlooked it, but could someone explain what Cosby got out of incriminating himself in the civil case, would he not have been better off denying everything there as well?

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.