Bill Cosby conviction vacated, to be freed from prison

[field 225]

21 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

It’s my understanding that the DA made a statement that he wasn’t going to prosecute “at this time” in a press conference. If that’s accurate then I don’t consider that to be a legally binding “promise” to never prosecute.  If the DA had granted him immunity that would be a whole different deal but that’s not what happened. 

You're missing the whole part about the District Attorney telling Cosby's lawyers that his office would not prosecute Cosby because he, the District Attorney, believed that a civil lawsuit by Constand was her "best option."  He further told Coby's lawyer that, because he was not going to prosecute Cosby, the District Attorney believed Cosby would no longer be able to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights.

As a lawyer, there is no way in the world that isn't a deal.  If the DA had not made those representations to Cosby, his lawyers would not have let him testify in the civil case (read: invoke his Fifth Amendment rights).  Stated another way, the only reason Cosby did not invoke his Fifth Amendment rights was because of the representations the District Attorney made to his lawyers.  

 

[wildcat09 29355]

38 minutes ago, field said:

You're missing the whole part about the District Attorney telling Cosby's lawyers that his office would not prosecute Cosby because he, the District Attorney, believed that a civil lawsuit by Constand was her "best option."  He further told Coby's lawyer that, because he was not going to prosecute Cosby, the District Attorney believed Cosby would no longer be able to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights.

As a lawyer, there is no way in the world that isn't a deal.  If the DA had not made those representations to Cosby, his lawyers would not have let him testify in the civil case (read: invoke his Fifth Amendment rights).  Stated another way, the only reason Cosby did not invoke his Fifth Amendment rights was because of the representations the District Attorney made to his lawyers.  

 

If Cosby's lawyers let him testify in the civil case based on that, they committed malpractice.

[Brisketexan 105160]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

If Cosby's lawyers let him testify in the civil case based on that, they committed malpractice.

I'd say so, because they should have gotten it in writing.

All of that said, there was plenty of evidence of a deal that he detrimentally relied on, which gave the court of appeals enough to get their hooks into.

[wildcat09 29355]

The problem isn't just that there wasn't a written agreement. In what world would it be ok for an attorney to tell a client that he can't plead the 5th and he's got to testify in a civil case because a prosecutor says so?

[Brisketexan 105160]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

The problem isn't just that there wasn't a written agreement. In what world would it be ok for an attorney to tell a client that he can't plead the 5th and he's got to testify in a civil case because a prosecutor says so?

As I understand it, if there is no actual risk of incrimination (that is, no charges can be brought for the act at issue, like if limitations have run), then you cannot invoke the 5th, because there is no actual self incrimination to avoid.  But I am NOT a criminal defense attorney, so my understanding could be off.

[South Austin 52521]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

The problem isn't just that there wasn't a written agreement. In what world would it be ok for an attorney to tell a client that he can't plead the 5th and he's got to testify in a civil case because a prosecutor says so?

I dealt with this issue a long time ago in a federal civil case where a piece of shit defendant's witness in a securities case was pleading the Fifth in response to almost every question.  As I recall under federal law, in order to plead the Fifth Amendment as a basis to refuse to answer questions in a civil matter, the witness has to show that there is a pending or likely possible criminal investigation involving the same subject. (And by the way, we eventually got a federal judge in Dallas to order that witness to give deposition testimony in jail because he was fucking with us on discovery for so long.  That was fun.) 

I'm reaching at a memory that's about 20 years old, so maybe I'm off.  But possibly Cosby's attorney's felt confident enough based on the prosecutor's representation that his client was in the clear for any criminal prosecution related to this victim that he felt he had no basis for invoking the Fifth Amendment at his deposition.  But still -- and maybe this is hindsight -- I'd invoke the Fifth out of an abundance of caution, and let a judge overrule my objection at a discovery hearing just to cover my ass.

[wildcat09 29355]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

As I understand it, if there is no actual risk of incrimination (that is, no charges can be brought for the act at issue, like if limitations have run), then you cannot invoke the 5th, because there is no actual self incrimination to avoid.  But I am NOT a criminal defense attorney, so my understanding could be off.

Same understanding and same qualifier that I'm not a criminal defense attorney, but what we're talking about isn't a scenario where there's no actual risk of incrimination. We're talking about a scenario where a prosecutor simply tells defense counsel "hey I'm not charging him now because I think by not charging him now that means he can't plead the 5th in his civil case," which seems to me to be an absolutely horrible reason for defense counsel to tell a client they have to testify. What if the DA is wrong on the law? What if he's full of shit (like DAs tend to be)? There's no way I'd let my client testify based on something that flimsy. 

[wildcat09 29355]

1 minute ago, South Austin said:

I dealt with this issue a long time ago in a federal civil case where a piece of shit defendant's witness in a securities case was pleading the Fifth in response to almost every question.  As I recall under federal law, in order to plead the Fifth Amendment as a basis to refuse to answer questions in a civil matter, the witness has to show that there is a pending or likely possible criminal investigation involving the same subject. (And by the way, we eventually got a federal judge in Dallas to order that witness to give deposition testimony in jail because he was fucking with us on discovery for so long.  That was fun.) 

I'm reaching at a memory that's about 20 years old, so maybe I'm off.  But possibly Cosby's attorney's felt confident enough based on the prosecutor's representation that his client was in the clear for any criminal prosecution related to this victim that he felt he had no basis for invoking the Fifth Amendment at his deposition.  But still -- and maybe this is hindsight -- I'd invoke the Fifth out of an abundance of caution, and let a judge overrule my objection at a discovery hearing just to cover my ass.

This seems like the only ethical option unless you actually have an agreement in writing.

[0xdeadbeef 1651]

You could fill books with stuff I don't know about how the law works.

Even if he couldn't take the 5th in the civil proceedings, wouldn't a good lawyer recommend that he use the tried-and-true "I don't recall" for 95% of the questions?   Maybe for a few "Did you rape her?" type questions he lies and says a direct "No", but everything else should have gone to the mental shedder.   If it's he-said-she-said, and he's Bill F-ing Cosby, he's probably going to win. 

 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33875]

credit to @brakeman for this one. one of the more poignant political cartoons of late:

[JimmyJames 12271]

The fact that cops outright lie to suspects to get false confessions and the justice system is ok with that and shipping some poor dude to death row based on lies and trickery, contrasted with this where the DA may have misspoke and misled poor old pudding pops and his apparently dumbass high priced lawyers into incriminating himself and eventually getting off completely scot free tells you all you need to know. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

5 hours ago, field said:

You're missing the whole part about the District Attorney telling Cosby's lawyers that his office would not prosecute Cosby because he, the District Attorney, believed that a civil lawsuit by Constand was her "best option."  He further told Coby's lawyer that, because he was not going to prosecute Cosby, the District Attorney believed Cosby would no longer be able to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights.

As a lawyer, there is no way in the world that isn't a deal.  If the DA had not made those representations to Cosby, his lawyers would not have let him testify in the civil case (read: invoke his Fifth Amendment rights).  Stated another way, the only reason Cosby did not invoke his Fifth Amendment rights was because of the representations the District Attorney made to his lawyers.  

 

Actually it’s not a deal. Not at all.

[JimmyJames 12271]

Let me be clear about something. The dumbass DA fucked this up six ways to Sunday. His statements were dumb and in all likelihood motivated by self interest. Nevertheless, that doesn’t justify giving puddin pops a complete pass. The law failed here. There was no deal. Never has. Never was. Unless you be rich. 

[dcbc 14492]

5 hours ago, South Austin said:

I dealt with this issue a long time ago in a federal civil case where a piece of shit defendant's witness in a securities case was pleading the Fifth in response to almost every question.  As I recall under federal law, in order to plead the Fifth Amendment as a basis to refuse to answer questions in a civil matter, the witness has to show that there is a pending or likely possible criminal investigation involving the same subject. (And by the way, we eventually got a federal judge in Dallas to order that witness to give deposition testimony in jail because he was fucking with us on discovery for so long.  That was fun.) 

I'm reaching at a memory that's about 20 years old, so maybe I'm off.  But possibly Cosby's attorney's felt confident enough based on the prosecutor's representation that his client was in the clear for any criminal prosecution related to this victim that he felt he had no basis for invoking the Fifth Amendment at his deposition.  But still -- and maybe this is hindsight -- I'd invoke the Fifth out of an abundance of caution, and let a judge overrule my objection at a discovery hearing just to cover my ass.

I thought it included potential criminal liability as well, as opposed to pending cases.  But I haven't had to think about it in a while on the civil side of thing.  But similarly, about 20 years ago, I represented a guy (or his corporation) in a big civil judgment collection action where admitting to crimes was definitely a worry.

Also, the former DA that cut the deal also represented Trump in the second impeachment trial.  No C/R

Edited July 1, 2021 by dcbc

[Eskimohorn 5635]

Let me be clear about something. The dumbass DA fucked this up six ways to Sunday. His statements were dumb and in all likelihood motivated by self interest. Nevertheless, that doesn’t justify giving puddin pops a complete pass. The law failed here. There was no deal. Never has. Never was. Unless you be rich. 

If there were no deal, why did he agree to testify?

[JimmyJames 12271]

39 minutes ago, Eskimohorn said:

If there were no deal, why did he agree to testify?

Because his lawyers were complete idiots and the penn Supreme Court let them all of the hook for some strange inexplicable reason which had absolutely nothing to do with money.

[0xdeadbeef 1651]

25 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Because his lawyers were complete idiots and the penn Supreme Court let them all of the hook for some strange inexplicable reason which had absolutely nothing to do with money.

So if I understand what this thread is saying,  he had lawyers that were complete idiots to start with, and then they turned into high-powered lawyers that only 2%ers can afford?   

[conVINCEd 21469]

36 minutes ago, 0xdeadbeef said:

So if I understand what this thread is saying,  he had lawyers that were complete idiots to start with, and then they turned into high-powered lawyers that only 2%ers can afford?   

Being a lawyer is a lot like being an offensive coordinator.

[aggie08 21505]

2 minutes ago, conVINCEd said:

Being a lawyer is a lot like being an offensive coordinator.

What's the Madden equivalent for lawyers?

[conVINCEd 21469]

36 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

What's the Madden equivalent for lawyers?

No idea.  I haven’t played a video game since college.

[Wulaw Horn 19118]

4 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

Let me be clear about something. The dumbass DA fucked this up six ways to Sunday. His statements were dumb and in all likelihood motivated by self interest. Nevertheless, that doesn’t justify giving puddin pops a complete pass. The law failed here. There was no deal. Never has. Never was. Unless you be rich. 

Why do you say there was no deal?  It’s not a problem that it wasn’t in writing- that’s only an issue in property law/statue of frauds right?  
the state didn’t contend there wasn’t a deal did they?

People keep talking about the DA “fucking this up” but two things:

1) none of this goes public without the first DA getting him on the record and the floodgates opening and the victim got a 7 figure settlement; and

2) the new DA- who didn’t make the deal- toon his shot- got a conviction and got 3 years in jail before it got overturned. I fail to see what he could have done to get a better outcome/how he fucked up. 
 

it was a he said/she said case from many years prior that almost never ends with a conviction. Because of how it played out a victim got money, Cosby went to jail, and everyone knows now he’s a scum bag rapist. That might not be (3 years in jail for serial raping) what we’d like to see (I’d be fine with life in prison or death penalty for these circumstances honestly) nut with the relatively shitty cards the DA’s were dealt this seems like about the best outcome one could expect. I don’t see any reason for condemning the job the DA’s did but I’m certainly open to hearing the argument. I just haven’t heard it made clearly yet. 

[immortal13 4059]

10 hours ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Why do you say there was no deal?  It’s not a problem that it wasn’t in writing- that’s only an issue in property law/statue of frauds right?  
the state didn’t contend there wasn’t a deal did they?

People keep talking about the DA “fucking this up” but two things:

1) none of this goes public without the first DA getting him on the record and the floodgates opening and the victim got a 7 figure settlement; and

2) the new DA- who didn’t make the deal- toon his shot- got a conviction and got 3 years in jail before it got overturned. I fail to see what he could have done to get a better outcome/how he fucked up. 
 

it was a he said/she said case from many years prior that almost never ends with a conviction. Because of how it played out a victim got money, Cosby went to jail, and everyone knows now he’s a scum bag rapist. That might not be (3 years in jail for serial raping) what we’d like to see (I’d be fine with life in prison or death penalty for these circumstances honestly) nut with the relatively shitty cards the DA’s were dealt this seems like about the best outcome one could expect. I don’t see any reason for condemning the job the DA’s did but I’m certainly open to hearing the argument. I just haven’t heard it made clearly yet. 

This is the way I understand the situation. If there was no deal, there would have been no incentive for Cosby to answer questions. He would have simply pled the 5th as to not incriminate himself

Edited July 2, 2021 by immortal13

[Neonmoon 38129]

13 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

Let me be clear about something. The dumbass DA fucked this up six ways to Sunday. His statements were dumb and in all likelihood motivated by self interest. Nevertheless, that doesn’t justify giving puddin pops a complete pass. The law failed here. There was no deal. Never has. Never was. Unless you be rich. 

I don’t know why you keep saying there wasn’t a deal when legally, there was indeed a deal. 

[wildcat09 29355]

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided that there was a legal agreement, but I think their basis for deciding that is pretty weak. 

Cops lie to get people to incriminate themselves all the time and courts are fine with that. I don't see this as substantively different, except Cosby is rich and famous, and the rich and famous are entitled to softer treatment in our justice system than regular people.

[Gene Parmesan 4008]

I think I follow the appeal decision.  So why did the original trial judge disagree?  I assume this wasn't the first time Cosby's attorneys made the argument.  

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided that there was a legal agreement, but I think their basis for deciding that is pretty weak. 

Cops lie to get people to incriminate themselves all the time and courts are fine with that. I don't see this as substantively different, except Cosby is rich and famous, and the rich and famous are entitled to softer treatment in our justice system than regular people.

I only quickly scanned through it once but it’s  my understanding not even the court said there was a binding contract but instead applied the principal of promissory estoppel which meant that despite no contract the promise was relied on by Cosby anyway to his detriment so it should be enforced. I have never heard of such a thing in the context of criminal law and you can bet your ass that joe six pack doesn’t get that ruling in his favor.

[JimmyJames 12271]

13 hours ago, 0xdeadbeef said:

So if I understand what this thread is saying,  he had lawyers that were complete idiots to start with, and then they turned into high-powered lawyers that only 2%ers can afford?   

It’s not so much the money paid to his lawyers on appeal that won it for him it’s the fact that the court bent over backwards to help Cosby out and issued a ruling that 99.9 percent of the population would never, ever, get. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/22557691/bill-cosby-pennsylvania-released-commonwealth-david-wecht-andrea-constand-metoo-sexual-assault
 

This article does a pretty good job explaining what happened. I don’t agree with it completely but it summarizes what happened well. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

Without a formal immunity deal Cosby’s lawyers should have advised him to take the fifth in the depositions. The fact they didn’t is clearly malpractice.

And to set this guy free AND bar a retrial based on statements made by a prosecutor in a fucking press conference is simply outrageous. 

[0xdeadbeef 1651]

I was curious what Cosby actually said during the civil deposition.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/19/arts/bill-cosby-deposition-reveals-calculated-pursuit-of-young-women-using-fame-drugs-and-deceit.html

Quote

Interest in Mr. Cosby’s deposition grew this month when a federal judge unsealed a 62-page memorandum of law in the case, which had been settled in 2006. The memorandum contained excerpts from the deposition, including Mr. Cosby’s acknowledgment that he had obtained quaaludes as part of his effort to have sex with women.

I'm glad the truth came out and exposed Cosby as the PoS he is, but I have to wonder where the hell his legal team was during this exchange.  Deal or not, sealed or not, why would you ever admit to that?   It's like 90% of the bad guys on CSI or L&O; show them some still-explainable-evidence and they go all "I'm glad I did it".   

I guess its good for the world that bad guys don't learn to shut the fuck up.

   

[atomheartbevo 89735]

Phylicia Rashad is having to backtrack her statement and support of him, and apologizing to Howard and its students.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/02/us/phylicia-rashad-howard-letter/index.html

[phdhorn 6224]

On 7/1/2021 at 10:53 PM, Wulaw Horn said:

Why do you say there was no deal?  It’s not a problem that it wasn’t in writing- that’s only an issue in property law/statue of frauds right?  
the state didn’t contend there wasn’t a deal did they?

People keep talking about the DA “fucking this up” but two things:

1) none of this goes public without the first DA getting him on the record and the floodgates opening and the victim got a 7 figure settlement; and

2) the new DA- who didn’t make the deal- toon his shot- got a conviction and got 3 years in jail before it got overturned. I fail to see what he could have done to get a better outcome/how he fucked up. 
 

it was a he said/she said case from many years prior that almost never ends with a conviction. Because of how it played out a victim got money, Cosby went to jail, and everyone knows now he’s a scum bag rapist. That might not be (3 years in jail for serial raping) what we’d like to see (I’d be fine with life in prison or death penalty for these circumstances honestly) nut with the relatively shitty cards the DA’s were dealt this seems like about the best outcome one could expect. I don’t see any reason for condemning the job the DA’s did but I’m certainly open to hearing the argument. I just haven’t heard it made clearly yet. 

If I read correctly, the deal was that the first DA promised no criminal prosecution if Cosby would talk in depositions for the civil suit.  The DA had nothing besides circumstantial evidence go to on since these events occurred so long ago.  And he reasoned that nothing that would be brought into court would convict someone, more especially a well-known (and up to that point, well-regarded) celebrity.  I.e. he thought he had no case.  So he went to Cosby's lawyers to offer this deal - Billy Boy talks to give ammo for the upcoming civil suits (where proof of guilt is much less and he could easily win a few), he gets immunity more or less for criminal, but not civil, prosecution.  Cosby's lawyers took it.

Cosby's team said hell yeah, and with that immunity given by the DA, told the "truth", or at least his version of it, enough to give the dA ammo to convict in civil court (Cosby's team maintains to this day he got Quaaludes/roofies with the intent of using it for date rape, but never did (yeahsurealrightfineI'msurelol).  So their part of the deal was telling him to "tell the truth", so he fessed up to that part.

That was the deal that was struck.  But then the new DA went rogue and busted the deal and brought him up on criminal charges, reneging on the deal.  

Although I've just recently slept in a Holiday Inn and therefore am a legal expert, in reality I'm no lawyer so I can't speak to the validity of these verbal deals.  But SCOPA said new DA deprived Cosby of due process by proceeding under legal understandings that were breached and therefore infringed on Cosby's rights.

Like it or hate it, it seems to be such that I've seen like 250 lawyers on TV, in print, and even a few I know say, "yep, they did a deal - and it was a deal - and they reneged on it, and at that point Cosby had a case.  SCOPA said abso-fucking-loutely in their majority opinion.  And most lawyers I've read or know say with the way that decision came down, it'll essentially guarantee that Cosby can't be tried criminally for these unless some new evidence comes up w/in statute of limitations (which for almost all of them is passed).  

I'm not qualified on this, but the overwhelming majority in my reading of legal eagles say SCOPA are correct.  Seems like the screw up was the new DA from what I've seen.  And it helped me to understand why Cosby's lawyers had him essentially torpedo himself - he confessed to intent but not the crimes themselves, but he gave them something in return on this "deal."  That makes sense at least procedurally why they'd have him do it.

However, none of this impacts the civil suits, and he's going to lose a shit ton of money.

Edited July 3, 2021 by phdhorn

[Neonmoon 38129]

I wonder if they will appeal to the Supreme Court. I think the Pennsylvania law requiring a formal waiver from judge for immunity is an interesting twist. Also, the language of the press release did not say I promise. Ultimately with the conservative Supreme Court, I bet promissory estoppel would hold up. 
 

Did he not rape anyone in the past 10 years?

[Wulaw Horn 19118]

8 minutes ago, phdhorn said:

If I read correctly, the deal was that the first DA promised no criminal prosecution if Cosby would talk in depositions for the civil suit.  The DA had nothing besides circumstantial evidence go to on since these events occurred so long ago.  And he reasoned that nothing that would be brought into court would convict someone, more especially a well-known (and up to that point, well-regarded) celebrity.  I.e. he thought he had no case.  So he went to Cosby's lawyers to offer this deal - Billy Boy talks to give ammo for the upcoming civil suits (where proof of guilt is much less and he could easily win a few), he gets immunity more or less for criminal, but not civil, prosecution.  Cosby's lawyers took it.

Cosby's team said hell yeah, and with that immunity given by the DA, told the "truth", or at least his version of it, enough to give the dA ammo to convict in civil court (Cosby's team maintains to this day he got Quaaludes/roofies with the intent of using it for date rape, but never did (yeahsurealrightfineI'msurelol).  So their part of the deal was telling him to "tell the truth", so he fessed up to that part.

That was the deal that was struck.  But then the new DA went rogue and busted the deal and brought him up on criminal charges, reneging on the deal.  

Although I've just recently slept in a Holiday Inn and therefore am a legal expert, in reality I'm no lawyer so I can't speak to the validity of these verbal deals.  But SCOPA said new DA deprived Cosby of due process by proceeding under legal understandings that were breached and therefore infringed on Cosby's rights.

Like it or hate it, it seems to be such that I've seen like 250 lawyers on TV, in print, and even a few I know say, "yep, they did a deal - and it was a deal - and they reneged on it, and at that point Cosby had a case.  SCOPA said abso-fucking-loutely in their majority opinion.  And most lawyers I've read or know say with the way that decision came down, it'll essentially guarantee that Cosby can't be tried criminally for these unless some new evidence comes up w/in statute of limitations (which for almost all of them is passed).  

I'm not qualified on this, but the overwhelming majority in my reading of legal eagles say SCOPA are correct.  Seems like the screw up was the new DA from what I've seen.  And it helped me to understand why Cosby's lawyers had him essentially torpedo himself - he confessed to intent but not the crimes themselves, but he gave them something in return on this "deal."  That makes sense at least procedurally why they'd have him do it.

However, none of this impacts the civil suits, and he's going to lose a shit ton of money.

Yes- decent summary of the factors in play.where I think you are wrong is in saying the second da messed up. I don’t believe he did. He was (per the Supreme Court) estopped from bringing a case. He brought a case anyway and Cosby had to do 3 years as a result. It got overturned. So what. That’s a better result than if he never brought charges in a lot of ways. 

[Wulaw Horn 19118]

8 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

 

Did he not rape anyone in the past 10 years?

My guess would be no. I think we’d have definitely heard about it. He’s in his 70’s. Maybe the desire passed or he has no lead in his pencil. 

[phdhorn 6224]

1 hour ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Yes- decent summary of the factors in play.where I think you are wrong is in saying the second da messed up. I don’t believe he did. He was (per the Supreme Court) estopped from bringing a case. He brought a case anyway and Cosby had to do 3 years as a result. It got overturned. So what. That’s a better result than if he never brought charges in a lot of ways. 

I agree that he "didn't" mess up in going ahead with it, and maybe he figured exactly that this could happen.  So in the "glass half full" sense, he got the perp 3 years in (hopefully) pound-me-in-the-ass prison. But in the other sense, he didn't have grounds to proceed criminally (apparently), so they voided his conviction and sentence.  So yes, for sure 3 years is better than none.  But eventually this was gonna get overturned.

[Wulaw Horn 19118]

40 minutes ago, phdhorn said:

I agree that he "didn't" mess up in going ahead with it, and maybe he figured exactly that this could happen.  So in the "glass half full" sense, he got the perp 3 years in (hopefully) pound-me-in-the-ass prison. But in the other sense, he didn't have grounds to proceed criminally (apparently), so they voided his conviction and sentence.  So yes, for sure 3 years is better than none.  But eventually this was gonna get overturned.

Yeah- he might have messed up (definitely he was aggressively pushing the envelope) in even bringing the case, but that’s not what most of the knee jerk comments about who messed what up mean. 
Fact if the matter is they got some measure of justice, well after the fact, against a rich and beloved famous person. That’s not easy to accomplish in America. 

[Nolacycling 893]

TV'S Judge Joe Brown responded, “He gave them pills. He didn’t force it down their throats.

[Bevo 13579]

13 hours ago, phdhorn said:

I agree that he "didn't" mess up in going ahead with it, and maybe he figured exactly that this could happen.  So in the "glass half full" sense, he got the perp 3 years in (hopefully) pound-me-in-the-ass prison. But in the other sense, he didn't have grounds to proceed criminally (apparently), so they voided his conviction and sentence.  So yes, for sure 3 years is better than none.  But eventually this was gonna get overturned.

Wouldn't this create some liability for the state? Forget the fact that Cosby was guilty. He or any person should be able to sue the state for such a transgression. And regardless of the culpability of the second DA, what kind of settlement should Cosby be able to get if he sues his attorneys for malpractice? Three years is a long time when if procedures were followed correctly, he would have never gone to jail.

[TwiceHorn 31505]

45 minutes ago, Bevo said:

Wouldn't this create some liability for the state? Forget the fact that Cosby was guilty. He or any person should be able to sue the state for such a transgression. And regardless of the culpability of the second DA, what kind of settlement should Cosby be able to get if he sues his attorneys for malpractice? Three years is a long time when if procedures were followed correctly, he would have never gone to jail.

You can't generally sue prosecutors.  An exception is a statutory provision for wrongful imprisonment, which usually requires exoneration, not merely winning an appeal, and that's not suing prosecutors really.

And, I rather seriously doubt that his attorneys didn't make a full disclosure of the pros and cons so that Cosby made an informed decision regarding the decision to bend over civilly, and probably also the lack of a written agreement.  And, in the final analysis, the "position" of Cosby's attorneys was held to be correct, so there was no malpractice.

Edited July 4, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31505]

On 7/2/2021 at 9:15 AM, wildcat09 said:

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided that there was a legal agreement, but I think their basis for deciding that is pretty weak. 

Cops lie to get people to incriminate themselves all the time and courts are fine with that. I don't see this as substantively different, except Cosby is rich and famous, and the rich and famous are entitled to softer treatment in our justice system than regular people.

Well, as us lawdogs get reminded all that time, lawyers are held to a higher standard than cops.

It seems that Castor testified endlessly that he intended to foreclose the Commonwealth of Pa. from ever bringing criminal charges against Cosby, and that both Cosby's and Costand's attorneys understood that and relied to their detriment on that.  The big question mark is whether he had the ability to do that at all, regardless of his intention.

So the issue would seem to be not whether Castor was lying or not, but rather whether he had the ability to "dismiss with prejudice" the charges against Cosby relating to Costand.

And it would seem that only such a complete removal of the ability to prosecute would deprive Cosby of his 5th Amendment rights.

Weird deal.

Edited July 4, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

8 hours ago, Nolacycling said:

TV'S Judge Joe Brown responded, “He gave them pills. He didn’t force it down their throats.

wtf ?!

[Wulaw Horn 19118]

7 hours ago, Bevo said:

Wouldn't this create some liability for the state? Forget the fact that Cosby was guilty. He or any person should be able to sue the state for such a transgression. And regardless of the culpability of the second DA, what kind of settlement should Cosby be able to get if he sues his attorneys for malpractice? Three years is a long time when if procedures were followed correctly, he would have never gone to jail.

Let’s say he could sue. How much money do you think a jury would give a known rapist who got off on a technicality? 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

5 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Let’s say he could sue. How much money do you think a jury would give a known rapist who got off on a technicality? 

Well if it's a jury of his peers like Mrs. Rashad, and Judge Joe, and other Hollywood types he just might win.

[HouTex 1884]

As one of my law school professors said, “lawyers publish their mistakes, doctors bury their’s.”

[Eskimohorn 5635]

Let’s say he could sue. How much money do you think a jury would give a known rapist who got off on a technicality? 

Give me money. My lawyers didnt advise me that I shouldn’t admit to drugging women during my rape case.

[Augustus 3061]

On 7/1/2021 at 4:11 PM, JimmyJames said:

Let me be clear about something. The dumbass DA fucked this up six ways to Sunday. His statements were dumb and in all likelihood motivated by self interest. Nevertheless, that doesn’t justify giving puddin pops a complete pass. The law failed here. There was no deal. Never has. Never was. Unless you be rich. 

I'm a little late in replying to this, but I just watched a documentary about all this and wanted to review the thread.

The bolded part is the opposite of what happened.

Both DA's, in fact, did a fantastic job of getting some actual punishment for Cosby--both financial and imprisonment--that he would never in a million years have endured without them doing what they did.

The first DA tells him he won't prosecute him. Now Cosby has no 5th amendment rights in the civil trial, because he can't incriminate himself.  So he answers truthfully--like an idiot, I'll add, but I think he got off on bragging about it while believing he couldn't be prosecuted.  The result was that Constand got a few million out of him.

The second DA says, "fuck the previous DA's promise. I'm gonna take his deposition and send him to prison."  He almost certainly knew the conviction would be overturned on appeal, but also knew Cosby would have to do some real time before that happened.

So, DA #1 contrives a means to get Cosby on the record and he's forced to settle for 3 million.

DA #2 takes the record and manages to get Cosby to sit in prison for a few years.

Both outcomes never happen without those guys doing what they did.

I applaud them both.

[Chooky 13316]

That's a perfect breakdown of the whole thing without having to go through all the gross details. Thanks. 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13515]

As screwed up as it was with Cosby getting out of prison, perhaps we need to accept that any punishment was better than none. 

[Augustus 3061]

3 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

As screwed up as it was with Cosby getting out of prison, perhaps we need to accept that any punishment was better than none. 

Exactly.

At least he was in a prison to be released from, for a few years.