Bill Cosby (Update: PA Supreme Court overturns conviction) (2 Viewers)

[buzd]

About the only good thing about this is that he is still damaged as a person, which he richly deserves. The whole "me too" movement is not invalidated by this unfortunate legal gaffe on the part of prosecutors. The misongynists of the world will draw the wrong conclusions. He is still guilty; it's just that the system screwed up royally.

Either you have a do-not-prosecute agreement or you don't. Imagine that you were wrongly accused of a crime, entered into an agreement that you couldn't be prosecuted for it, and then got prosecuted for it. That could have happened here. It's just that the he was not wrongly accused--and the crime(s) in this case was (were) atrocious, high profile, and repeated.

I blame the prosecutors for screwing this up. I do not understand why there was a do-not-prosecute agreement in the first place.

Well that's really the issue at hand. There was no formal agreement, Which is what the new DA and ultimately the appeals court ruled on. However, there was a understanding that there was going to be no prosecution and this was used to coerce testimony without the option of the fifth amendment. So while it's true that there wasn't any formal signed documents, the (old) DA led Cosby down a path that he wouldn't have taken otherwise, pretty much putting the agreement there even though it wasn't formalized. And that's what the Supreme Court ultimately ruled.

I don't like it and that scumbag shouldn't go free, but I understand the ruling and find it hard to disagree with.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

How many women ultimately testified?
The other women get to bring charges now, no?

 

[Saintman2884]

About the only good thing about this is that he is still damaged as a person, which he richly deserves. The whole "me too" movement is not invalidated by this unfortunate legal gaffe on the part of prosecutors. The misongynists of the world will draw the wrong conclusions. He is still guilty; it's just that the system screwed up royally.

Either you have a do-not-prosecute agreement or you don't. Imagine that you were wrongly accused of a crime, entered into an agreement that you couldn't be prosecuted for it, and then got prosecuted for it. That could have happened here. It's just that the he was not wrongly accused--and the crime(s) in this case was (were) atrocious, high profile, and repeated.

I blame the prosecutors for screwing this up. I do not understand why there was a do-not-prosecute agreement in the first place.

"MeToo still has the ghost of forcing Al Franken's retirement from the Senate prematurely in 2017 and several women using this political and social phenomenon to falsely accuse several Hollywood male celebrities, including Morgan Freeman, of sexual assault, making inappropriate gestures, remarks, sexually-laced innuendo or sexually harassing them. Back about 3-4 years ago, " MeToo was being criticized by a few, faint voices saying lets not convict every person who gets accused without due process or legal jurisprudence, instead of the court of public opinion.

Strange, ironic thing is that in hindsight, I thought Franken was a mediocre senator, overall and actually disagreed with him politically on more then a few issues as well as his swarmy, snarky, assholish attitude and demeanor he put out in stand-ups, his satirical books and his seemingly self-righteous, holier-than-thou, elitist attitude.

 

[Doug B]

How many women ultimately testified?
The other women get to bring charges now, no?

Statute of limitations had passed on all of them at the time of the Andrea Constand criminal trial (started April 2018). Andrea Constand's case was the last one still within the statute of limitations, with the incident alleged to have occurred in January 2004.

EDIT: More detail around the statute of limitations issue -- I didn't explain it exactly right, but I do know that the Andrea Constand case was the last one still within the statute of limitations:

Recently elected District Attorney Steele announced in late 2015, days before he officially took office (still acting as Assistant District Attorney), that a felony charge would be laid against Cosby on December 30 as a result of the accusations made by Andrea Constand. There was some urgency since the criminal statute of limitations in the case would expire after 12 years, at the beginning of January 2016.

 

[Mr. Blue Sky]

Statute of limitations had passed on all of them at the time of the Andrea Constand criminal trial (started April 2018). Andrea Constand's case was the last one still within the statute of limitations, with the incident alleged to have occurred in January 2004.

And her case had only a few days left before statute of limitations ran out.


also the judge who unleashed Cosby today said he cant be tried again.

 

[tomwaits]

And her case had only a few days left before statute of limitations ran out.


also the judge who unleashed Cosby today said he cant be tried again.

Can't be tried for raping the women that came forward so far, but as Guide alluded, could he be tried for rape of women who have yet to come forward? (Assuming there are any)

 

[Doug B]

Can't be tried for raping the women that came forward so far, but as Guide alluded, could he be tried for rape of women who have yet to come forward? (Assuming there are any)

Charges have to be filed within 12 years of the offense.

 

[Mr. Blue Sky]

Can't be tried for raping the women that came forward so far, but as Guide alluded, could he be tried for rape of women who have yet to come forward? (Assuming there are any)

Guido said ‘the other women’.. presumably he meant the other women who came forward, all of which all all alleged incidents that happened *before* Andrea Constand…. If there are any other women who he raped *after* Andrea Constand, then yes, i guess theoretically he could be tried for those events.. i just kinda think that if no one else has come forward by now, they probably wont.

 

[Saintman2884]

Well that's really the issue at hand. There was no formal agreement, Which is what the new DA and ultimately the appeals court ruled on. However, there was a understanding that there was going to be no prosecution and this was used to coerce testimony without the option of the first amendment. So while it's true that there wasn't any formal signed documents, the (old) DA led Cosby down a path that he wouldn't have taken otherwise, pretty much putting the agreement there even though it wasn't formalized. And that's what the Supreme Court ultimately ruled.

I don't like it and that scumbag shouldn't go free, but I understand the ruling and find it hard to disagree with.

If this case ever gets discussed, along with many other landmark SCOTUS and celebrity criminal trials, in law books, or in undergraduate/graduate legal courses at major universities across this country, I hope that one major takeaway or theme that gets discussed and hopefully, agreed upon, is that young up-and-coming prosecutors, federal attorneys don't cut corners even if their tempted to by mass public sentiment to convict someone who's likely guilty of alleged, accused crimes but has high-paid, intelligent defense teams analyzing your side's every move to see if there's an possible opening they can pounce on. Or don't assume that any verbal legal understandings or assumptions of previous prosecutorial agreements aren't binding just because your predecessors didnt formalize it in writing.

And for God's sakes, when it comes to making huge, daring legal decisions to try and prosecute a well-known, powerful celebrity, "assuming" is likely the worst, most asinine thing one can do without double-and-triple checking your team has its legal ducks in row.

 

[Tapxe]

Does this mean we have to pull our pants up now?

Only if you don't want a pudding pop.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

"MeToo still has the ghost of forcing Al Franken's retirement from the Senate prematurely in 2017 and several women using this political and social phenomenon to falsely accuse several Hollywood male celebrities, including Morgan Freeman, of sexual assault, making inappropriate gestures, remarks, sexually-laced innuendo or sexually harassing them. Back about 3-4 years ago, " MeToo was being criticized by a few, faint voices saying lets not convict every person who gets accused without due process or legal jurisprudence, instead of the court of public opinion.

Strange, ironic thing is that in hindsight, I thought Franken was a mediocre senator, overall and actually disagreed with him politically on more then a few issues as well as his swarmy, snarky, assholish attitude and demeanor he put out in stand-ups, his satirical books and his seemingly self-righteous, holier-than-thou, elitist attitude.

it should also be noted that the % of false accusations is TINY compared to actual abuse that happens on a day to day basis
no one should be falsely accused, but the idea of making rape/abuse even more difficult to charge and prosecute for fear of the tiny, tiny, tiny % of false charges is one that should avoided

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

Only if you don't want a pudding pop.

...how long do i have to decide?

 

[Optimus Prime]

If I understand this right the reason he was released was Cosby was told that his testimony wouldn't be used against him (or even made public IIRC) and that's when he admitted that he had given drugs to women in the past

If that's true, I seem to remember that coming up before the trial as why the case couldn't move forward, so why did the case move forward?

And if that's true what took three years to find this out?

 

[buzd]

If I understand this right the reason he was released was Cosby was told that his testimony wouldn't be used against him (or even made public IIRC) and that's when he admitted that he had given drugs to women in the past

If that's true, I seem to remember that coming up before the trial as why the case couldn't move forward, so why did the case move forward?

And if that's true what took three years to find this out?

The DA changed and the new DA made a different decision to move forward with prosecution. The trial court ruled that it could because there was no "formal" agreement not to prosecute (even though lawyers on both sides used that agreement to make decisions and move forward in civil court), and the appeals court affirmed that decision. That ruling was appealed to the PA Supreme Court (not SCOTUS, it should be noted) who overturned that ruling (originally the trial court's) based on the original (non) agreement not to prosecute. The PASC's ruling vacated the subsequent conviction.

That's a 3-year process.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

There was just an A Different World reunion

He was mentioned in passing a couple times

How'd I miss that?