@metal-brain saidTake away lesson here:
I didn't say he was innocent. That has nothing to do with it.
The prosecutor in the civil case promised he would not be prosecuted in return for his testimony so Cosby would not plead the 5th. Then during the criminal trial that agreement was not honored by allowing his testimony during the civil trial to be used as evidence to prosecute him.
The legal process was n ...[text shortened]... e taken place before the civil trial. It didn't, so they didn't have enough evidence.
Understand?
1. Sexual assault victims should not do what their instincts tell them to do, namely go home in shame and misery and take a hot bath.
2. They should immediately secure forensic evidence and medical examination documents. Forensic examiners have experience finding ‘precious bodily fluids’ in the most unlikely places. Get a blood test, if they suspect they were doped, and get photographs of any bruising or other injuries sustained.
3. If at all possible, scratch your assailant. Not to hurt or deter him, but to get his DNA under your fingernails. That at least proves he was at the scene and shoots down one false alibi.
@eladar saidTypically they are.
Is the plea bargain typically in writing? One show I watched on the matter seemed to imply that they typically are in writing.
But if you read the decision, you'd know that neither side disputed the fact that the DA told Cosby he would not be charged for the very purpose of requiring him to testify in the civil disposition. It would be fundamentally unfair i.e. a violation of due process for Cosby to be compelled to incriminate himself based on a promise that the DA's office was not required to fulfill.
@moonbus saidThe problem was in 2004 a DA decided not to risk losing a case even though he had a witness credibly describing a sexual assault. This is generally why rape cases have such a low rate of success in bringing accused rapists to justice, not because of difficulties at trial - the last stats I saw said rape trials had guilty verdicts at about the same percentage as other felony charges.
When all is said and done, a rapist and sexual predator is at large. I appreciate that procedures must be followed, but in this case justice was not seen to have been rendered.
The case is reminiscent of this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_v._Strauss-Kahn
@no1marauder saidthe DAs agreement was never made official. The court erred when they decided “in the interest of fairness”. That is not a legal standing.
The problem was in 2004 a DA decided not to risk losing a case even though he had a witness credibly describing a sexual assault. This is generally why rape cases have such a low rate of success in bringing accused rapists to justice, not because of difficulties at trial - the last stats I saw said rape trials had guilty verdicts at about the same percentage as other felo ...[text shortened]... rges.
The case is reminiscent of this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_v._Strauss-Kahn
@mott-the-hoople saidOf course it is:
the DAs agreement was never made official. The court erred when they decided “in the interest of fairness”. That is not a legal standing.
"The Court has held that practically all the criminal procedural guarantees of the Bill of Rights—the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments—are fundamental to state criminal justice systems and that the absence of one or the other particular guarantees denies a suspect or a defendant due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment.1077 In addition, the Court has held that the Due Process Clause protects against practices and policies that violate precepts of fundamental fairness,1078 even if they do not violate specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights.1079 The standard query in such cases is whether the challenged practice or policy violates “a fundamental principle of liberty and justice which inheres in the very idea of a free government and is the inalienable right of a citizen of such government.”1080"
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-14/section-1/generally-the-principle-of-fundamental-fairness
Note that in this case the procedure violated a specific, enumerated right i.e. "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fifth_amendment
So the violation was, if anything, even more egregious.
@no1marauder saidwhat part of "never made official" do you not understand?
Of course it is:
"The Court has held that practically all the criminal procedural guarantees of the Bill of Rights—the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments—are fundamental to state criminal justice systems and that the absence of one or the other particular guarantees denies a suspect or a defendant due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment.1077 [b]In ad ...[text shortened]... .cornell.edu/constitution/fifth_amendment
So the violation was, if anything, even more egregious.
@mott-the-hoople saidWhat part of what you think is "official" or not doesn't matter don't you?
what part of "never made official" do you not understand?
@no1marauder saidIf a deal has been offered but never “memorialized” is legal, what is the need to “memorialize” any deal?
What part of what you think is "official" or not doesn't matter don't you?
The court made a bad decision here. The agreement was never made legal and the current prosecutor was not bound by it.
“ Castor has insisted that his 2005 promise not to prosecute Cosby, which was never formally memorialized and became a key issue in pretrial proceedings after Cosby was charged in 2015, was nevertheless binding.”
https://www.inquirer.com/news/pennsylvania/bruce-castor-bill-cosby-prosecutor-agreement-pa-supreme-court-20210630.html
@mott-the-hoople saidYou seem to think that the only agreements that are "legal" are those that are written.
If a deal has been offered but never “memorialized” is legal, what is the need to “memorialize” any deal?
The court made a bad decision here. The agreement was never made legal and the current prosecutor was not bound by it.
“ Castor has insisted that his 2005 promise not to prosecute Cosby, which was never formally memorialized and became a key issue in pretria ...[text shortened]... er.com/news/pennsylvania/bruce-castor-bill-cosby-prosecutor-agreement-pa-supreme-court-20210630.html
That is not, and has never been, the law.
1 edit
"In January and February of 2005, then-D.A. Castor led an investigation into Constand’s allegations. When that investigation concluded, Mr. Castor decided that the
case was saddled with deficiencies such that proving Cosby’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt was unlikely, if not impossible. For those reasons, D.A. Castor decided not to prosecute Cosby. To announce his decision, the district attorney elected to issue a signed press release—an uncommon tactic in the typical case, but not necessarily so in cases of high public profile or interest. In that press statement, D.A. Castor explained the extent and nature of the investigation and the legal rules and principles that he considered. He then announced that he was declining to prosecute Cosby. The decision was not conditioned in any way, shape, or form. D.A. Castor did not say that he would re-evaluate this decision at a future date, that the investigation would continue, or that his decision was subject to being
overturned by any future district attorney.
There is nothing from a reasonable observer’s perspective to suggest that the decision was anything but permanent.
https://www.pacourts.us/Storage/media/pdfs/20210630/163038-june302021opinionwecht.pdf at p. 62
"Promissory estoppel is the legal principle that a promise is enforceable by law, even if made without formal consideration when a promisor has made a promise to a promisee who then relies on that promise to his subsequent detriment."
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/promissory_estoppel.asp
A promise was made to Cosby, he relied on it (more accurately, he was forced to rely on it and waive his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination) and it was to his detriment.
@mott-the-hoople saidTo exonerate someone means to declare him innocent of the crime of which he is accused. This is not the case for Bill Cosby, he has not been declared innocent of rape and sexual assault; he is guilty of that. He has however been released from prison, despite being guilty, because of a procedural error by the prosecution. I believe that although he has been released from prison, his name and reputation have been permanently tarnished. I doubt he will be able to set foot outside his door without being vilified by the general public.
the definition I have says he was