Bill Cosby’s Sex Assault Conviction Overturned by Court

[Maybenaut]

I do understand that we have rights, including the right not to fess up.
But he did. We know he did the things the women accused him of because he fessed up.

Poor Mr. Cosby. Someone lied to him to get him to do what they wanted.

Cops can lie to suspects to get them to confess. Prosecutors must negotiate in good faith.

Or did they?

From what I gather, Cantor didn’t lie. He told Cosby the state wouldn’t prosecute, and told the judge at Cosby’s trial that the intent was for the state never to prosecute. The new prosecutor successfully argued to the judge that Cantor’s promise to Cosby was procedurally defective, so Cosby couldn’t rely on it.

Is every DA bound by the previous DA’s promises?

That’s … complicated. The PA Supreme Court thought that under the facts if this case the DA is was bound.

[Phoenix520]

Thanks

[noblepa]

I saw a report on CNN that said that part of the reason for overturning his election, in addition to the DA breaking the promise given to Cosby, that the judge improperly allowed victims of previous alleged sexual assaults to testify at his trial.

In general, discussion of prior bad acts is not permissible at trial, except to establish a pattern. The PA Supreme Court ruled that the testimony about prior bad acts was improper.

The state is free to try him again. I have not heard whether a decision has been made to do so.

[Maybenaut]

I saw a report on CNN that said that part of the reason for overturning his election, in addition to the DA breaking the promise given to Cosby, that the judge improperly allowed victims of previous alleged sexual assaults to testify at his trial.


In general, discussion of prior bad acts is not permissible at trial, except to establish a pattern. The PA Supreme Court ruled that the testimony about prior bad acts was improper.

I don’t think that’s right. The PA Supreme Court granted review of that issue, but did not discuss it because in light of its ruling on the other issue, the other-acts issue was “moot.”

The state is free to try him again. I have not heard whether a decision has been made to do so.

He can’t be retried. The Supreme Court is requiring “specific performance” of the terms of the contract. It said the gravity of the harm required it.

[chancery]

I was thinking up a comment on the "technicality" argument, but Mike Dunford @questauthority got there first.

He's getting out because the court said that if a prosecutor makes that promise, and the defendant testifies relying on the promise, you can't later revoke the promise, take the testimony, and prosecute him. That's a basic rights and basic fairness decision, not a technical one.

The argument for keeping him in was largely that the prosecutor didn't go through the right procedural steps to make the promise formal and binding. That's a technicality-based argument. "A promise is a promise" isn't.

[bob]

Is every DA bound by the previous DA’s promises?

That’s … complicated. The PA Supreme Court thought that under the facts if this case the DA is was bound.

And Mike D. (on Twitter) made a good policy point: Cosby had the money to litigate this, but other defendants reliant on court-appointed attorneys might not have gotten this gold-plated advocacy. It is probably a good outcome for the less visible defendants, with less egregious facts, who don't have the resources to push back against the DA.

And also the rant:

[Estiveo]

Estiveoshot_20210701_100235.jpg

[Maybenaut]

Estiveoshot_20210701_100235.jpg

Instead of Cosby pouring the glass, though, it should be Cantor. He’s the one that screwed the victim out of justice.

[chancery]

Actually, that's something that's been puzzling me. It wasn't Cantor who successfully introduced the testimony at trial, it was his successor. So why is Cantor the villain?

[bob]

Actually, that's something that's been puzzling me. It wasn't Cantor who successfully introduced the testimony at trial, it was his successor. So why is Cantor the villain?

Superficially, because Cantor's agreement is what caused the conviction to be vacated.

But would there have even been a criminal case without Cantor's agreement? Probably not.

The mostly likely scenario is that, without Cantor's agreement, Cosby would have just taken the Fifth at the deposition. Which would have led to an adverse inference in the civil case or (much more likely) a confidential settlement.

Could a criminal case have been built without the deposition testimony? I don't know the case well enough, but my WAG is no.

[chancery]

Yeah, I haven't followed the case at all, but that was my impression too.

Was the testimony under seal prior to its being used in the criminal trial?

[Maybenaut]

I should have said he *potentially* screwed the victim out of justice. I don’t know whether Cosby would’ve been convicted without his depo testimony, but he certainly couldn’t be based on Cantor’s promise.

What is unclear to me is whether the victim was asking Cantor to grant immunity so Cosby couldn’t take the Fifth in the civil case. I personally don’t think prosecutors should involve themselves in stuff like that. And if she did make such a request, well, she has to share in the blame.

[bob]

What is unclear to me is whether the victim was asking Cantor to grant immunity so Cosby couldn’t take the Fifth in the civil case. I personally don’t think prosecutors should involve themselves in stuff like that.

This article (from 2016) uses too much passive voice, but suggests it was Cantor's idea. Because he believed a big settlement was the only remaining justice that she could receive.

[Maybenaut]

What is unclear to me is whether the victim was asking Cantor to grant immunity so Cosby couldn’t take the Fifth in the civil case. I personally don’t think prosecutors should involve themselves in stuff like that.

This article (from 2016) uses too much passive voice, but suggests it was Cantor's idea. Because he believed a big settlement was the only remaining justice that she could receive.

He should have stayed the fuck out of it.

[Kendra]

https://news.yahoo.com/actress-accuses- ... 00100.html

An actress who once appeared on The Cosby Show is accusing Bill Cosby of drugging and raping her in a new civil filing.

Lili Bernard, an actress featured in a single episode of The Cosby Show, is asking the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey to award her $100 million on four counts alleging Cosby assaulted her, battered her, inflicted emotional distress, and falsely imprisoned her in 1990 in Atlantic City, New Jersey, as well as an additional $125 million in punitive damages.

"Ms. Bernard sustained permanent injuries, including, but not limited to, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression, emotional distress, and physical sequelae thereof, nightmares, flashbacks, inability to sleep, severe physical pain and suffering, severe emotional pain and suffering, embarrassment, and multiple other permanent injuries," the filing said.

CNN says they've got her coming up for an interview very soon.

[Maybenaut]

The US Supreme Court denied cert in the State’s bid to get the conviction reinstated.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... eme-court/

[MN-Skeptic]

[keith]

Why the hell not?

Is he on the lam? In a hospital?

Why doesn't he HAVE to be in the court room to hear the verdict (or at least on video feed)?

[June bug]

Why the hell not?

Is he on the lam? In a hospital?

Why doesn't he HAVE to be in the court room to hear the verdict (or at least on video feed)?

Civil case. IANAL, but I don’t think defendant has to be there.

[Maybenaut]

A pet irritation of mine…

He wasn’t found “guilty.” He was found liable.

[June bug]

A pet irritation of mine…

He wasn’t found “guilty.” He was found liable.

Yep. Criminal vs. civil.