• 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

theprestige said:
.....
Again I ask, why on earth would they say anything at all about the quality of the evidence or the likelihood of guilt?
Click to expand...

The fact that they didn't is what's notable. Often, when an appeals court throws out a conviction, it's because there is some question or doubt about the evidence used against the defendant, and the court says so. Not here.
 
The Judicial Branch's opinion of itself as this collection of detached observers above all our puny mortal concerns who don't have to have any worry about functional results of their decisions doesn't sit as well with me as it used to.
 
Last edited:
"Don't worry you didn't get justice, but someone somewhere else might" is a cold comfort.
 
Bob001 said:
One commentator says that when a person leaves the jurisdiction where he allegedly committed a crime, the statute of limitations is "tolled," or paused, and other jurisdictions -- New York, California, Nevada -- where Cosby assaulted other women might now choose to initiate investigations and prosecutions.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2018/04/27/bill-cosby-full-list-accusers/555144002/
https://www.thewrap.com/60-bill-cosby-accusers-complete-list-breakdown-guilty/
Click to expand...

Legal commentators, generally speaking, are often full of ****.

I'm not aware of statute of limitations tolling for people who happen to be in other states in the country. It's not like Cosby was hiding from justice in Argentina, if these states wanted to act on this within the appropriate timespan, they absolutely could have.
 
Bob001 said:
The fact that they didn't is what's notable. Often, when an appeals court throws out a conviction, it's because there is some question or doubt about the evidence used against the defendant, and the court says so. Not here.
Click to expand...

I'm saying it's not notable. First of all, it's not notable because the question they were asked had nothing to do with the quality of the evidence. Second, it's not notable because appeals courts consider questions of procedure. If the evidence was produced through improper means, for example. It would be wildly inappropriate for the court to consider the evidence and pass their own judgement on Cosby.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Legal commentators, generally speaking, are often full of ****.

I'm not aware of statute of limitations tolling for people who happen to be in other states in the country. It's not like Cosby was hiding from justice in Argentina, if these states wanted to act on this within the appropriate timespan, they absolutely could have.
Click to expand...


Sure, if they wanted. The question is whether they can do so now. One site says this:
Tolling most commonly occurs when the defendant becomes a fugitive from the jurisdiction where he committed the crime. For example, let's say that Jesse James robs a bank in Dodge City, Kansas on July 1, 2011. The next day, James flees Kansas hell-bent on escaping capture, and he hides out in the Badlands of South Dakota for six years. James is then caught and charged by the feds with bank robbery on July 1, 2017. James will not be able to get his case thrown out by arguing that the five-year limit for prosecuting his case has passed. Instead, the judge will rule that the statute of limitations tolled (was suspended) during the six years that James was on the lam, and the prosecution can go forward.
Click to expand...
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/question-tolling-statute-of-limitations-28325.html

Another says this:
If a potential defendant is outside the state of California for a particular period of time, the limitations period is suspended or tolled during the time he is out of the state. It is not necessary that the potential defendant be out of the state at the time the cause of action accrues. If the cause of action accrues, and begins to run, and the potential defendant leaves the state while the limitations period is running and before it expires, the limitations period is suspended during the time the potential defendant is outside of the state.
Click to expand...
https://www.williamjtuckerlaw.com/tolling-statutes-of-limitation/

Looks like prosecutors could at least file charges and let the courts decide what to do with them.
 
"But the Pennsylvania Supreme Court said that District Attorney Kevin Steele, who made the decision to arrest Cosby, was obligated to stand by his predecessor’s promise not to charge Cosby. There was no evidence that promise was ever put in writing.

Justice David Wecht, writing for a split court, said Cosby had relied on the former district attorney's decision not to charge him when the comedian gave his potentially incriminating testimony in Constand’s civil case.

The court called Cosby's arrest “an affront to fundamental fairness, particularly when it results in a criminal prosecution that was forgone for more than a decade.”

The justices said that overturning the conviction, and barring any further prosecution, “is the only remedy that comports with society’s reasonable expectations of its elected prosecutors and our criminal justice system.”

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/bill-cosby-sex-assault-conviction-163915409.html
 
RolandRat said:
The justices said that overturning the conviction, and barring any further prosecution, “is the only remedy that comports with society’s reasonable expectations of its elected prosecutors and our criminal justice system.”
Click to expand...

And that's how I see it, too. Setting guilty people free when the state cuts corners seems like a fundamental part of any truly just rule of law.
 
RolandRat said:
"But the Pennsylvania Supreme Court said that District Attorney Kevin Steele, who made the decision to arrest Cosby, was obligated to stand by his predecessor’s promise not to charge Cosby. There was no evidence that promise was ever put in writing.

Justice David Wecht, writing for a split court, said Cosby had relied on the former district attorney's decision not to charge him when the comedian gave his potentially incriminating testimony in Constand’s civil case.

The court called Cosby's arrest “an affront to fundamental fairness, particularly when it results in a criminal prosecution that was forgone for more than a decade.”

The justices said that overturning the conviction, and barring any further prosecution, “is the only remedy that comports with society’s reasonable expectations of its elected prosecutors and our criminal justice system.”

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/bill-cosby-sex-assault-conviction-163915409.html
Click to expand...

Legal Commentators are saying this is a extremely bizarre ruling.
 
theprestige said:
And that's how I see it, too. Setting guilty people free when the state cuts corners seems like a fundamental part of any truly just rule of law.
Click to expand...

Problem is, happens often enough people get inclined to take the law into their own hands.
 
Bob001 said:
Often, when an appeals court throws out a conviction, it's because there is some question or doubt about the evidence used against the defendant, and the court says so.
Click to expand...

Is it? I thought it was because of errors or abuse of rights, technicalities and so forth, mostly.
 
Maybe it's different in other countries, but in the US, reviewing the evidence and deciding whether the jury got it right is definitely NOT the role of a court of appeal. Nor should we want it to be.
 
The other side of the coin of prosecutorial misconduct. The injustice of a DA railroading an innocent person is well known, but unethical prosecutors can also cause the plainly guilty to walk free.

The "deal" made with Cosby stinks to high heaven. It should be investigated for any signs of corruption.
 
Don't shoot the messenger

"Several of the attorneys discussed how those who criticize the outcome may be quick to characterize this as a technicality, including former federal prosecutor Laurie Levenson, who now leads Loyola Law School’s wrongful conviction clinic. “People will see this as Cosby getting off on a technicality, but what the conviction is being reversed on is legal grounds,” she says. “There are rules in bringing these prosecutions. They can’t use what he said under a promise of immunity.”

Adds [criminal defense attorney Blair] Berk, “Overturning this conviction was not based on a ‘technicality’ as many will too quickly claim, but instead clearly based on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s affirmation that a critical underpinning of our system of justice in the United States is that every citizen, even those who are famous or infamous, is entitled to be treated fairly and receive fundamental due process when accused of a crime.”" Hollywood Reporter.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
The other side of the coin of prosecutorial misconduct. The injustice of a DA railroading an innocent person is well known, but unethical prosecutors can also cause the plainly guilty to walk free.

The "deal" made with Cosby stinks to high heaven. It should be investigated for any signs of corruption.
Click to expand...

The prosecutor who made the deal was Bruce Castor, who later led Trump's defense at his second impeachment. He may have a peculiar view of right and wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Castor
 
Bob001 said:
The prosecutor who made the deal was Bruce Castor, who later led Trump's defense at his second impeachment. He may have a peculiar view of right and wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Castor
Click to expand...

It can't be that peculiar, if this kind of thing is going on all the time. I bet he's got about the same view of right and wrong as a lot of prosecutors.
 
theprestige said:
It can't be that peculiar, if this kind of thing is going on all the time. I bet he's got about the same view of right and wrong as a lot of prosecutors.
Click to expand...

Who says it's going on all the time? Multiple commentators are saying this situation appears to be unique. For one thing, they say a deal like
Cosby claimed he had is usually signed by all parties and their lawyers and approved by a court. In this case, the prosecutor issued a press release on his own, apparently without even telling the victim or the police. Not the usual practice.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/bill-cosby-walks-free-because-of-power-hungry-prosecutor-bruce-castor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom