• 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

Bob001 said:
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
Click to expand...
Yes.
The Cosby case scholar said this today on radio.
Cant recall her name or the book.
So this court looks very unusual but possibly Cosby fans.
 
Vox's legal analysis

Vox's Ian Millhiser on the opinion here. He thinks that it is poorly written but probably correct.
 
Double jeopardy says you can't be tried twice for the same crime. I have no doubt that there are other victims who have not testified or come forward for the original trial. It would be interesting to see one or more provide evidence for a completely new trial.
 
There's no Federal Crime here. It would have to be some way outside the box sideway way for the Federal Supreme Court to even get involved.
 
51282478497_c96ca25b33_z.jpg
 
So... why did the original prosecutor agree to not charge Cosby? What was he getting out of it?
 
alfaniner said:
Double jeopardy says you can't be tried twice for the same crime. I have no doubt that there are other victims who have not testified or come forward for the original trial. It would be interesting to see one or more provide evidence for a completely new trial.
Click to expand...

Double jeopardy usually applies when someone is found not guilty. In this case, the Supreme Court vacated the original guilty verdict. It's as if the trial didn't happen. They could have ordered a new trial that would exclude the questionable evidence. But the court prohibited that, too, which some commentators are calling unusual.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Supreme Court isn't above a State Supreme Court in most matters.
Click to expand...

Yes it is:

https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/types-cases/appeals

Federal courts won't consider appeals on questions of state law, but the Supreme Court will. The way to appeal it would be to argue that some constitutional infringement has occurred because of the State court's decision. If the Supreme Court thinks it's a good argument, and that the issue is important, they'll hear your appeal. And if you make a convincing case, the Supreme Court will overrule that court's decision.

Which makes sense when you think about it, since the Supreme Court overrides state governments all the time. In fact I bet if I dug around, I could find at least one or two threads where you're celebrating the Supreme Court doing exactly that, or worrying that they could but won't.
 
It wasn't a "deal" that the original prosecutor made with Cosby, it was a maneuver to make it easier to win a civil trial.

Personally I think the supreme court of PA got it right but that certainly doesn't imply Cosby is a good guy, just that the prosecutors office overstepped.
 
theprestige said:
A civil case he could actually win.
Click to expand...

Prosecutors don't pursue civil cases except on behalf of the state itself. The civil case was by Constand against Cosby. Castor claimed that he couldn't win a criminal case, and hoped to help her win her civil case. But there seems to be some dispute about that. She has said that she and her lawyers weren't consulted.
 
NewtonTrino said:
It wasn't a "deal" that the original prosecutor made with Cosby, it was a maneuver to make it easier to win a civil trial.
....
Click to expand...

That's what Castor claims. But multiple commentators have observed that a no-prosecution agreement binding on future DAs has specific requirements, including approval by a judge, that Castor's press announcement didn't fulfill.
 
Bob001 said:
Prosecutors don't pursue civil cases except on behalf of the state itself. The civil case was by Constand against Cosby. Castor claimed that he couldn't win a criminal case, and hoped to help her win her civil case. But there seems to be some dispute about that. She has said that she and her lawyers weren't consulted.
Click to expand...

Bob001 said:
That's what Castor claims. But multiple commentators have observed that a no-prosecution agreement binding on future DAs has specific requirements, including approval by a judge, that Castor's press announcement didn't fulfill.
Click to expand...

One interesting question about all this is whether it's the defendant's job to know when the prosecutor is talking out his ass, and making promises he can't fulfil.
 
theprestige said:
One interesting question about all this is whether it's the defendant's job to know when the prosecutor is talking out his ass, and making promises he can't fulfil.
Click to expand...

Maybe not the defendant's job. But certainly his high-priced lawyers' job.
 
Bob001 said:
Maybe not the defendant's job. But certainly his high-priced lawyers' job.
Click to expand...
Maybe from a "get what you paid for" perspective. What about from a legal perspective?

Because that's the real issue, right? Even a public defender can't excuse botching a legal protection for her client, by claiming she's not paid enough to do the actual lawyering.

No court is going to rule that for the price he was paying, Cosby was legally entitled to a better quality of lawyering. On the other hand, a court might rule that anyone who engages a lawyer is entitled to all the basic lawyering that come with passing the bar exam. So that's my question. Is this kind of vetting of prosecutor "deals" a basic lawyering task? Or is it up to the prosecutor to make sure the deal they're "offering" will stand up in court?
 
Bob001 said:
That's what Castor claims. But multiple commentators have observed that a no-prosecution agreement binding on future DAs has specific requirements, including approval by a judge, that Castor's press announcement didn't fulfill.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom