Bill Cosby to walk free after court overturns sex assault conviction

[kpete]

PHILADELPHIA — Pennsylvania’s highest court overturned Bill Cosby’s sex assault conviction Wednesday after finding an agreement with a previous prosecutor prevented him from being charged in the case.

Cosby has served more than two years of a three- to 10-year sentence at a state prison near Philadelphia. He had vowed to serve all 10 years rather than acknowledge any remorse over the 2004 encounter with accuser Andrea Constand.

The 83-year-old Cosby, who was once beloved as “America’s Dad,” was convicted of drugging and molesting the Temple University employee at his suburban estate.

https://nypost.com/2021/06/30/bill-cosby-to-be-released-after-court-overturns-conviction/

[wryter2000]

1. Let me get this straight

He was given an agreement by another prosecutor for immunity or something like that? If so, I guess the ruling has to stand. I'm glad he served at least some time.

[unblock]

9. Yes I'd love to see more details on this

It says an agreement prevented him from even being charged?

I can see an agreement like, tell us this one thing and we won't your answer against you, maybe. But then he could still be charged, as long as they didn't use that answer as part of the case against him.

But an agreement that prevent even being charged? I can't see that except in cases where someone agrees to testify against a bigger fish.

[uponit7771]

35. +1, right...why was he charged then if he already had an agreement

[Effete Snob]

41. Political pressure on the subsequent prosecutor

[uponit7771]

43. WOW !!! This is proof that some DA's in America have way too much power !!! WTF ?! A waste of time

... and money.

Just think what would happen if a person didn't have Cosby's resources to fight such bullshit.

This is not to say Cosby is not guilty he even admit it to drugging people

[Faux pas]

2. ...

[TheBlackAdder]

29. Bill Cosby's new show on OANN this Fall: TO CATCH A PRE-DATER

[Faux pas]

33. ...

[Budi]

3. Will his 1st stop be tRump's special guest at Mar a Lago?

Cosby could be on the golf course with Dotard by the weekend!

🖕🏼🖕🏼🖕🏼🖕🏼🖕🏼🖕🏼

[Aristus]

4. And he could join forces with O.J. Simpson to go after the "real" perpetrator.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

21. Doubtful. Cosby campaigned for President Obama. I doubt he is a trumpanzee.

[zaj]

5. How does this happen?

[Brother Buzz]

15. The Orange Anus' impeachment lawyer, Bruce Castor, unknowingly left....

a "Get Out of Jail Free" card on the table; he was the first Cosby prosecutor.

[Effete Snob]

16. It happens because the Constitution has a Fifth Amendment

In exchange for him not invoking the Fifth in a previous matter, he was immunized. Then, that testimony was used against him by a later prosecutor who figured that it was easier not to resist political pressure and to proceed to get a conviction that pretty much anyone knew was not going to stand up on appeal.

That way, the prosecutor doesn't get blamed, and everybody can get upset at "technicalities" (otherwise known as "Constitutional Rights" ).

There's no real constituency for the 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments, though, since they only apply to people accused or convicted of crimes. Consequently, they usually only matter when someone is a criminal.

Ernesto Miranda kidnapped and raped an 18 year old young woman, you know, but everyone goes on about their "Miranda rights" in his honor.

[zaj]

25. This makes sense. Strong analysis, thanks!

[Ms. Toad]

30. Not quite There was no "in exchange for."

It was a unilateral decision by the prosecutor - not a bargain.

He then informed the public of his decision via a press release, but there was no agreement between the prosecution and either Cosby's team or Constand's team.

So the issue isn't whether an agreement should be enforced (it should be - if there was one). It is whether Cosby was entitled to rely on the public statements by the prosecutor to the extent that he didn't even bother to attempt to assert his 5th amendment rights during the civil trial.

So - as to the principle, you are absolutely correct.

As to the facts, it is far less clear the Supreme Court reached the right conclusion.


Here's the opinion, in cae you want to take a gander: https://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/J-100-2020mo%20-%20104821740139246918.pdf?cb=1

[Effete Snob]

48. "It was a unilateral decision by the prosecutor - not a bargain"

Detrimental Reliance, see also, promissory estoppel.

[Ms. Toad]

53. I didn't say there was no legal question here. I said it was a unilateral decision, not a bargain.

The legal analysi is very different for detrimental reliance or promissory estoppel than it is for contract.

There would have been no question of its enforceability had it been an actual contract, nor would the second prosecutor had brought the case. There are questions here that survived trial review, as well as appellate review.

[TraceNC]

49. Yep. The state removed his

Fifth Amendment protection (that’s exactly what the public pronouncements did, as multiple legal scholars are explaining this afternoon) and then they used his statements against him. Can’t have that happen or we’re all in jeopardy of losing that protection.

[LizBeth]

6. Another rapist walks.... Remember the face of a rapist.

[HAB911]

7. 5 were too many

4 would not have been enough to show a pattern

[Initech]

8. WTF!!!

[Corgigal]

10. Women vs rich men,

or a rich woman vs her stealing daddy. We never get a damn break.

Getting spooky.

[onecaliberal]

31. The man is always rigjt, always gets the benefit while women get a lifetime

Of emotional distress and worse.

[DLevine]

11. Damn shame. He's a monster. nt

[Demovictory9]

13. yes he is. and drugging women? He could have killed them.

[Hoyt]

12. Christ. That just ain't right. Will have to watch for legal analysis.

[Effete Snob]

20. This IS the legal analysis

The only one that matters, anyway:

https://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/J-100-2020mo%20-%20104821740139246918.pdf?cb=1

In 2005, Montgomery County District Attorney Bruce Castor learned that Andrea
Constand had reported that William Cosby had sexually assaulted her in 2004 at his
Cheltenham residence. Along with his top deputy prosecutor and experienced detectives,
District Attorney Castor thoroughly investigated Constand’s claim. In evaluating the
likelihood of a successful prosecution of Cosby, the district attorney foresaw difficulties
with Constand’s credibility as a witness based, in part, upon her decision not to file a
complaint promptly. D.A. Castor further determined that a prosecution would be
frustrated because there was no corroborating forensic evidence and because testimony
from other potential claimants against Cosby likely was inadmissible under governing
laws of evidence. The collective weight of these considerations led D.A. Castor to
conclude that, unless Cosby confessed, “there was insufficient credible and admissible
evidence upon which any charge against Mr. Cosby related to the Constand incident
could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Seeking “some measure of justice” for Constand, D.A. Castor decided that the
Commonwealth would decline to prosecute Cosby for the incident involving Constand,
thereby allowing Cosby to be forced to testify in a subsequent civil action, under penalty
of perjury, without the benefit of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

Unable to invoke any right not to testify in the civil proceedings, Cosby relied upon the
district attorney’s declination and proceeded to provide four sworn depositions. During
those depositions, Cosby made several incriminating statements.

D.A. Castor’s successors did not feel bound by his decision, and decided to
prosecute Cosby notwithstanding that prior undertaking. The fruits of Cosby’s reliance
upon D.A. Castor’s decision - Cosby’s sworn inculpatory testimony - were then used by
D.A. Castor’s successors against Cosby at Cosby’s criminal trial. We granted allowance
of appeal to determine whether D.A. Castor’s decision not to prosecute Cosby in
exchange for his testimony must be enforced against the Commonwealth.

[Ms. Toad]

34. But was he unable to invoke this right?

Cosby never even attempted to assert it (which would have tested whether the prosecutor's public statements were binding on the Commonwealth, it at the time it mattered). Cosby also had on at least one prior occasion in this matter spoken in an incriminating manner with police without exercising his right to remain silent.

It is not, from reading the facts, a given that he was actually unable to invoke his right not to testify - as opposed to merely perceiving it would be a worthless effort to try.

[uponit7771]

36. The public statement of the prosecutor was the offer, whether or not Cosby explicitly agreed

... to it should have been a case before a jury in my opinion instead of a judge

[Ms. Toad]

38. It was.

albeit not before a jury becaue it is a question of law, not fact.

Both the trial court and the appellate court determined the prosecution could proceed. The Supreme Court decision reverses the appellate affirmation of the trial court's decision.

[Effete Snob]

47. Yep

That's what makes it the Supreme Court.

Unfortunately, the side that loses is frequently the side which can say "Every court agreed with me until this one."

[Effete Snob]

44. The prosecutors intent was to remove a Fifth Amendment objection

[Ms. Toad]

56. That is only one of three elements you need to prove for detrimental reliance.

[Effete Snob]

58. The court found that reliance was reasonable

...and it is pretty obvious that he exposed himself to criminal prosecution in the absence of the promise being reliable.

In the strictly commercial context - the "I go build a garage because you promised me a car" scenario, the "detriment" is the cost of building the garage - which is not really "detrimental" unless you aren't forking over the car. Obviously, if you are going to give me the car, then the cost of building a garage is not a "detriment" in the sense that it would be if you weren't giving me the car.

Pretty obviously, reliance on the promise turned out to be pretty freaking detrimental.

But, on a systematic scale, you can't have prosecutors running around giving non-prosecution statements, pre-clearance letters, and all of the various contexts in which an affirmative statement of intent not to prosecute is relied upon, and then take backsies because of an unfavorable political climate later. One would lose an awful lot of testimonial cooperation in the balance.

[Ms. Toad]

61. He did expose himself to criminal prosecution -

But what is not clear is whether he did that in reliance on the public statements of the prosecutor.

You are asuming reliance because the consequences were detrimental. That's not how it works. You have to prove both reliance and that the reliance was detrimental.

As to your last paragraph, by the prosecutor's own statements, the lack of anything more than a press release was not the normal means of granting immunity from prosecution. If you read the opinion, and the statements by the subsequent prosecutor who decided the statements did not bar prosecution, the failure to follow the normal procedures for granting immunity was a significant factor in two courts determining that immunty did not exist. So your last comment addresses a systemic problem that simply doesn't exist because this was a fairly extreme situation to start with.

[Tomconroy]

14. The first prosecutor did promise immunity

If Cosby agreed to waive his fifth amendment rights and testify in a civil deposition filed by the complainant in the criminal case. The trial judge's ruling allowing the criminal case to proceed was, in my opinion, a travesty. I guess the Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed.

[wryter2000]

19. Oh, lordy

I'm just glad he did some time. I hope the state doesn't have to pay him restitution. Man, this sucks.

[Ms. Toad]

39. He did not agree.

This was a unilateral decision by the prosecutor, publically announced, with no input/consent/discussion with Cosby.

Cosby did not, in the civil matter, even attempt to assert his 5th amendment rights - the time to test whether he could rely on the public statement of the prosecutor or not. He merely testified without objection.

[Effete Snob]

45. He doesn't have to agree

It was clear that he acted in reliance on the prosecutor's statement.

If I make a public promise, and you rely on it to your detriment, what's that called...? Help me out here.

Apparently the court found his detrimental reliance to be reasonable under the circumstances.

[Ms. Toad]

55. It actually isn't clear.

And - as I pointed out earlier - detrimental reliance is a very different analysis than breach of contract.

The statements have to be intended to induce reliance (and they were, according to the 1st prosecutor), reliance has to be reasonable (probably - although press releases are not typically reliable statements in a legal sense) and Cosby has to actually rely on them. That is where the evidence is least clear.

During the civil trial, gave no indication he was relying on the prosecutor's public statements when he testifying. He didn't even attempt to assert the 5th amendment privilege. The ordinary process would be to assert the 5th amendment and have the judge go through a series of questions, after which he is informed that because there is no chance of prosection he has no 5th amendment privilege. Further, in the process leading up to the civil trial (prior to the prosecutor's public statements), Cosby had spoken with police, incriminating himiself, similarly without asserting his 5th amendment rights.

Cosby said some really stupid things - and appears to believe he did nothing wrong - which suggests to me the he spoke - not to avoid incrimnating himself (i.e. not in reliance on the prosecutor's statements), but because he truly believed he had nothing incriminating to say. In that case, he didn't testify in the civil trial in reliance on the prosector's statemnt - and no matter how hard you try to induce reliance, and how reasonable that reliance would have been - if you acted for reasons other than in reliance on the statements, there is no detrimental reliance.

[gldstwmn]

17. OMG. I feel so sorry for his victims

[Vinca]

18. That he did any time at all is amazing. They probably would have paroled him at some point

anyway, but just the same this is too bad. Guess if you have enough money to keep paying lawyers eventually some kind of shit will stick.

[njhoneybadger]

22. i didn't see that coming.

Money walks again.

[Xoan]

23. There are other states.

[Doc Sportello]

24. Disgusting

As Lisa Bloom just pointed out, his wealth made it possible to fight these charges for so long and eventually get out. Yes, he was prosecuted on his civil testimony but if he didn't have money and power he couldn't have appealed it and fought off these charges that go back almost 20 years. He is despicable and should have gone to jail a long time ago.

[Effete Snob]

50. His wealth made it desirable to leave him open to a civil suit in the first place

If he wasn't wealthy, then it would not have been worth stating he would not be prosecuted over testimony in the civil case.

[Doc Sportello]

52. You don't know that

Plenty of people who aren't wealthy get sued as a way to address grievances. Nor do you know all the reasons why he wasn't prosecuted in the first place. You seem to be on a crusade on this subject. Have at it, but stop acting like you have all the answers. Have at least one thought for the many victims of this sexual predator who should have been put away a long time ago.

[Effete Snob]

54. "Nor do you know all the reasons why he wasn't prosecuted in the first place"

Did you read the court's decision?

https://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/J-100-2020mo%20-%20104821740139246918.pdf?cb=1

The reason why he wasn't prosecuted in the first place is pretty clear, and was based on the judgment of more than one person.

[Doc Sportello]

57. Sorry I don't take the word of a dump defender

You obviously believe Castor is relating fact. Maybe you should watch his defense of dump for insight into his veracity. Regardless, stating that you don't KNOW all the facts is completely true. YOU DON'T KNOW ALL THE FACTS. Period.

And still not one word from you about the victims. That says it all.

[Effete Snob]

59. This is why the 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments are unpopular

Sorry, I'm a Constitution defender, and I'm also sorry that you feel a need to make personal attacks like that.

The Fifth Amendment provides a right against self-incrimination, and it doesn't say anything about victims either. In fact, the 5th and 6th Amendments are about the rights of persons accused of crimes.

Actually, you'll notice above, that I do mention that Ernesto Miranda kidnapped and raped an 18 year old. But people go around touting "Miranda rights" - even on DU - as important Constitutional protections.

The 5th Amendment is about proving some safety against coercive state power. Without it, we are all victims.

[brewens]

26. He should be known as the father of date rape for this "Spanish Fly" bit he had on

one of his early albums. When I heard the charges, that's how I knew it was probably true.

It was Cosby that was responsible for kids like me even knowing that Spanish Fly urban legend. How many of us got the idea that it would be really cool to be able to give a girls something that would make her want to have sex with you? Not exactly the same as drugging a girl to rape her, but close enough.

[Hekate]

27. How soon before he abandons that "pitiful old man" look?

Pardon my cynicism — but I can’t pardon him.

[onecaliberal]

32. Another rapist piece of shit gets away with it.

I hope he receives his just Karma ASAP.

[UTUSN]

37. *WHAT*?!!!!!!!!!!!

[hibbing]

40. Is he going to go back lecturing kids about their pants? n/t

[Runningdawg]

42. Your move Karma

[lunatica]

46. Now he can do an opening act for Trump

Cosby must be a hero to rapists.

[Raine]

51. Disgraceful! 👎 nt

[SunImp]

60. Just another POS escaping justice

[Skittles]

62. his legacy will be that of a truly sick pervert

so there's that