General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Court overturns Bill Cosby's conviction and bars future prosecution [View all]Ms. Toad
(33,915 posts)And other oddness that - had the PA Supreme Court chosen - could have led to a different outcome.
1st prosecutor decided there were enough holes in the case they coudn't prosecute. Rather than leave Constand without a remedy, the prosecutor publically announced a decision not to prosecute (which was also conveyed to counsel on both sides). The prosecutor's intent was to take away the threat of future criminal prosecution so that Cosby could be forced to testify in a civil trial under oath. (Had the threat of criminal prosecution still been real, Cosby could have refused to answer questions by asserting his 5th amendment right not to incriminate himself.)
Constand sued Cosby civilly - including forcing Cosby to testify under oath without the benefit of the 5th amendment protection against incrimination.
2nd prosecutor - after more women came forward said, "screw that" and prosecuted Cosby - using the deposition testimony given without the benefit of 5th amendment protections against incrimination. And the rest is history . . . until today.
Part of the court's reasoning:
While the prosecutors discretion in charging decisions is undoubtedly vast, it is not exempt from basic principles of fundamental fairness, nor can it be wielded in a manner that violates a defendants rights. The foregoing precedents make clear that, at a minimum, when a defendant relies to his or her detriment upon the acts of a prosecutor, his or her due process rights are implicated.
Oddities the cour could have used had it desired a different outcome:
Cosby never attempted to assert his 5th Amendment right against incrimination - he (and apparently his counsel) just assumed it would have been pointless. Since he never attempted to invoke it, it is impossible to determine whether he WOULD have attepted to invoke it but for the bar - or would have chosen, instead, to speak freely. On at least one other occasion, in police presence, he spoke when it would have been smarter to exercise his right against self-incrimination.
Nothing appears in the formal record (prior to trial) supporting the existence of an unconditional promise. It's all press releases and phone conversations. So, while there is a written record of at least an initial decision not to prosecute, the fact that it was a permanent decision the prosecutor believed they were making on behalf of the Commonwealth is present only in the recollection of the prosecutor as testified to at hearings related to the trial.
That's what I've got on a quick skim.
Here's the decision in case anyone else prefers the original - rather than the digested for public consumption version: https://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/J-100-2020mo%20-%20104821740139246918.pdf?cb=1