Question about Bill Cosby...

[Archae]

Why was his conviction overturned, and he was let out of jail?

I haven't received any REAL answers as to why.

Or is this yet another of "The rich and/or famous get off?"

[Casady1]

1. Second prosecutor should never had brought charges

He violated an agreement that the original prosecutor had made with Cosby.

[StarfishSaver]

10. The original prosecutor had not made any agreement with Cosby

[happybird]

2. The previous prosecutor had made a deal

with Cosby during the civil case, which occurred a couple years before the criminal case.

The PA Supreme Court ruled that the prosecutor who worked the criminal case was bound by the no prosecution deal struck by his predecessor.

[StarfishSaver]

11. There was no deal

[lapfog_1]

3. The state supreme court ruled, on appeal, that his right to due process was violated

The DA that received the original complaint made a verbal (supposedly) deal with Bill Cosby to not prosecute him IF he agreed to testify in the civil lawsuit with the plaintiff. He did testify and the next DA used that testimony in the criminal trial.

The real question is that such non-prosecution agreements are in writing and signed. In this case there was only a memo that mentioned the agreement.

Apparently that was enough to overturn the conviction.

[malthaussen]

4. He was promised immunity by a prosecutor for deposing in another case.

The "agreement" was apparently verbal, though, so it took the PA Supreme Court 2 years to find out about it.

So, I'd say it's sort of a case of "the rich and famous get off," although given the immunity agreement the Court had no choice in the matter. Ironically, the statute of limitations has now expired on the PA offenses, so he cannot be tried again. It is possible that he could face charges in other states, if anyone wants to come forward and present them after this fiasco. As with so many things, different states have different statutes of limitations, and different rules over whether or not jail time counts towards the limitation.

It's not a satisfactory answer, but it is the answer.

-- Mal

[StarfishSaver]

12. It wasn't an agreement

This was really a stretch by the court.

[Darwins_Retriever]

5. During his deposition

The initial prosecutor told him what he said in the deposition couldn't be used against him.

Then the prosecutor for the trial used his deposition to question him.

[Zeitghost]

6. Violation of his 5th amendment rights.

The original prosecutor agreed not to prosecute because there was not enough evidence to convict. This allowed a civil suit to force Cosby to testify because he could no longer claim 5th amendment protections against self incrimination. A second prosecutor then used that forced testimony to bring charges and get a conviction.

[sabbat hunter]

7. and now

he is protected by double jeopardy from any new charges. They would need to find new victims, new evidence to even attempt a new trial.

[IbogaProject]

8. He was allegedly offered an exemption from prosecution

He was allegedly offered an exemption from prosecution, no evidence of this alleged agreement was ever produced. And that type of non prosecution agreement wouldn't have been able to prevent it from being used in another later criminal act's prosecution. Guilty stuffy rich guy buys a get out of jail. The spanish fly bit and his interview on Larry King's show both cemented my belief he is guilty.

[artemisia1]

9. Proper procedure wasn't followed and "knowing" someone is guilty is not sufficient

to send someone to prison. Laws have to be followed.

Personally, my sympathy is with the poorer people of color who are actually innocent, but railroaded, who cannot afford attorneys who will challenge cases where the rule of law was not followed.

My sympathy is NOT with Mr. Cosby who I consider to be a disgrace to the human race. Nevertheless, the proper thing was done by the courts in releasing him.

[SYFROYH]

13. I know people are upset but this might have been the best outcome for justice.

Without the promise of no prosecution, Crosby wouldn’t have been compelled to describe his rape behavior in depositions for the civil case.

Without the depositions and the admissions of rape behavior, he would not have been prosecuted.

The second AG made his case with that evidence and the judge allowed it. Crosby was convicted and served 3 years. Although he wouldn’t have gotten it, he was eligible for parole in 3 years.

Even though he his conviction is vacated, his depositions still stand and civil action will proceed.

In others words, without the AG taking a risk by using the depositions there wouldn’t have been a conviction or any prison time nor admissions of wrong doing for the civil case.

I’m no lawyer but I know not everything is black letter law and sometimes Prosecutors swing for the fences on evidence.

[Dr. Strange]

14. Yep.

His victim got a 3 million dollar settlement, due to Cosby being compelled to testify. Without his testimony, she probably wouldn't have gotten much of anything.