Bill Cosby (Update: PA Supreme Court overturns conviction) (1 Viewer)

[FullMonte]

Here's my question about this...

This woman claims that she was assaulted by Cosby in 2004. She went to the police, and they said that they didn't have enough evidence to arrest him. She went to police again in 2005, and they said they didn't have enough evidence to arrest him.

Now, it's ten years later, and they arrest him...what evidence OF HER ASSAULT has magically appeared in the last 10 years?

 

[not2rich]

Here's my question about this...

This woman claims that she was assaulted by Cosby in 2004. She went to the police, and they said that they didn't have enough evidence to arrest him. She went to police again in 2005, and they said they didn't have enough evidence to arrest him.

Now, it's ten years later, and they arrest him...what evidence OF HER ASSAULT has magically appeared in the last 10 years?

Good question. I believe when the police failed to charge him, the victim sued him in civil court and forced him to give testimony under oath. I'm guessing that deposition testimony is now a big part of the prosecution's case. I'm also wondering whether the prosecution will try to introduce witness testimony from other victims who were assaulted in a similar fashion. Defense counsel of course will argue what happened to other women is irrelevant to this case.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

I will keep it simple. Sometimes I type too much and the point is lost.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

I am just looking for the truth.

He should be held accountable for his crimes.

He should not be held accountable to bogus accusations.

I will leave it at that.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Peace out and Happy New Year everyone.

you say you seek the truth but you're coming at it like a defense atty

many women did come forward right away and got shut down
remember all this came to light bc comedian Hannibal Buress was finally fed up with Cosby's hypocrisy and brought to light something that had been 'known' for years in tight circles

BUT EVEN MORE
what does it matter that some women willingly went up to his room?
at any point in a potential hook up either party is allowed to call it off
if he's drugging them it's taking away their ability to say "no"
that's rape and any attempt to victim blame is pretty skeezy

 

[not2rich]

what does it matter that some women willingly went up to his room?
at any point in a potential hook up either party is allowed to call it off
if he's drugging them it's taking away their ability to say "no"
that's rape and any attempt to victim blame is pretty skeezy

I completely agree.

However... it creates a credibility issue with the victim's claims in the minds of many. Sucks, but it's reality, until we get to a place where a woman can go with a man into a hotel room, without inferring assumptions about her intent.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

Daily News is not playing around

 

[FullMonte]

Good question. I believe when the police failed to charge him, the victim sued him in civil court and forced him to give testimony under oath. I'm guessing that deposition testimony is now a big part of the prosecution's case. I'm also wondering whether the prosecution will try to introduce witness testimony from other victims who were assaulted in a similar fashion. Defense counsel of course will argue what happened to other women is irrelevant to this case.

I don't see how a judge could allow witness testimony from other victims. Jane says Bill Cosby raped her. Julie says Bill Cosby raped her. Julie's claim in no way is evidence that Bill did anything to Jane.

Also, you call them victims who were assaulted n a similar fashion. From a legal standpoint, that is not correct. They are people who claim they were assaulted in a similar fashion. It would be a travesty of our legal system to allow them to testify that they were also assaulted, and for that to be used as evidence against him in this particular case.

To make an analogy. If my neighbor's house was broken into, and he claimed it was Ted, who lives next door to me that did it. It would be unfair to Ted to allow me to testify that my house was broken into by him as well, unless he had already been convicted of that.

 

[Zack Lee]

 

[st dude]

I don't see how a judge could allow witness testimony from other victims. Jane says Bill Cosby raped her. Julie says Bill Cosby raped her. Julie's claim in no way is evidence that Bill did anything to Jane.

Also, you call them victims who were assaulted n a similar fashion. From a legal standpoint, that is not correct. They are people who claim they were assaulted in a similar fashion. It would be a travesty of our legal system to allow them to testify that they were also assaulted, and for that to be used as evidence against him in this particular case.

To make an analogy. If my neighbor's house was broken into, and he claimed it was Ted, who lives next door to me that did it. It would be unfair to Ted to allow me to testify that my house was broken into by him as well, unless he had already been convicted of that.

I touched on this earlier in this thread. The general rule in most states is that evidence of other crimes is not admissible. The exception in most states is that evidence of other crimes can become admissible to show system and intent.

As a sex crimes prosecutor many years ago I took a great number of cases to the grand jury and had to decide in a regular basis if rape cases were prosecutable. The Sharper and Cosby cases show the value of other crimes evidence and when it should be used to protect society.

If one woman had come to me and said she was out drinking with Sharper and said she think he drugged her and raped her, that case alone might not be prosecutable. There would always be reasonable doubt as to whether she just got drunk and consented, or if she did have date rape drug in system, who gave it to her.

Now if five women came to see me, all with the same story of being drugged by Sharper, it becomes less likely this was just one woman making stuff up.

Whether other crimes evidence is admissible is decided very much on a case by case basis. For the reasons you point out, judges should only allow it in exceptional cases where it is necessary to show a pattern of crime.

The Sharper and Cosby cases are classic examples of where other crime evidence should be admissible. As stand alone cases almost none of these cases could be won. Imagine if just one woman was coming forward to accuse Cosby. Almost no one would believe her. So while there is great danger of potential prejudice in allowing evidence of other crimes in, it is not true that such evidence is not allowed in certain cases.

If I were the judge in the Cosby or Sharper cases, I would definitely consider allowing in evidence of complaints by other woman provided that the manner in which they claim to have been drugged and assaulted is very similar to the case being tried.

Here is a link to Federal rule 404 which codifies the law that allows evidence of other crimes. Most all states have a similar rule, some states adopt this exact language. So to answer your original question, one reason the old crime became suddenly prosecutable is all the new evidence of other crimes and admissions Cosby himself made in a civil deposition. How dumb was his civil attorney to let him answer those questions? He should have taken the fifth "dimension", even though it would have hurt his civil case.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_404

 

[FullMonte]

I touched on this earlier in this thread. The general rule in most states is that evidence of other crimes is not admissible. The exception in most states is that evidence of other crimes can become admissible to show system and intent.

Perhaps...but, an allegation that has yet to be proven isn't evidence of another crime.

Here is a link to Federal rule 404 which codifies the law that allows evidence of other crimes. Most all states have a similar rule, some states adopt this exact language. So to answer your original question, one reason the old crime became suddenly prosecutable is all the new evidence of other crimes and admissions Cosby himself made in a civil deposition. How dumb was his civil attorney to let him answer those questions? He should have taken the fifth "dimension", even though it would have hurt his civil case.

That could be right....I'm not sure on that. But, as for the other allegations, I think that the rule you posted prohibits their use. It says"

(b) Crimes, Wrongs, or Other Acts.

(1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.

Unless I'm misreading that, it says that you can't use another allegation against him to show that on this occasion he acted that way..

 

[st dude]

Perhaps...but, an allegation that has yet to be proven isn't evidence of another crime.



That could be right....I'm not sure on that. But, as for the other allegations, I think that the rule you posted prohibits their use. It says"

(b) Crimes, Wrongs, or Other Acts.

(1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.

Unless I'm misreading that, it says that you can't use another allegation against him to show that on this occasion he acted that way..

Full monte, these are good questions and arguments you bring up. Criminal defense attys argue mightily against evidence of other crimes because it can make a case unwinnable for the prosecution unwinnable for the defense. The Cosby case is the perfect example. The state probably can't win a single complaint case against Cosby without evidence of a pattern. Cosby probably can't win if the state parades a bunch of women on the stand who say they were drugged and raped too.

As to your first point, you raise the important distinction between putting on evidence of another conviction, a proven crime, versus putting on evidence of a crime that has not been proven, as with the Cosby allegations. This is what defense attys argue, that is, if you allow evidence of other crimes they are compelled to defend that crime as well.

It's an argument defendants can lose in states that allow other crimes evidence to show pattern. It is discretionary with the court and the other crimes evidence must be very similar. In some states that evidence can be used even when there was no conviction for the earlier crime.

The rule is other crimes evidence is not admissible. The exception is for method, knowledge, pattern or intent. The Cosby and Sharper cases are the exact type of cases the exception would apply in. In some states the women Cosby assaulted in the past could testify, even if there is no conviction. I know this because I have used other crime evidence in trials when I was a prosecutor.

Here is a good article on the subject as it relates to Cosby. You argument that other crimes evidence is too highly prejudicial to be used is fair and what many believe the law should be. But in many states that's not the law, other crimes evidence is admissible.

The character evidence is a different issue. You could not put in evidence that Cosby was in a biker gang or that he was a heroin user just to show he was a bad guy. The evidence would have to be of other crimes to show system and intent.
http://www.channel3000.com/news/what-could-happen-to-bill-cosby/37225240

 

[baarbogast]

A couple of questions:
1) Does all the coverage taint a potential jury pool?
2) By telling how he did it to early accusers, didn't that open the flood gates for anyone who met him?

I believe in innocent until proven guilty.

 

[Alan]

A couple of questions:
1) Does all the coverage taint a potential jury pool?
2) By telling how he did it to early accusers, didn't that open the flood gates for anyone who met him?

I believe in innocent until proven guilty.

While I agree (as do others) you have to entertain the idea that where there is smoke, there is fire. Again, I want truth AND justice. I also don't want to see another...

"If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit"

 

[st dude]

A couple of questions:
1) Does all the coverage taint a potential jury pool?
2) By telling how he did it to early accusers, didn't that open the flood gates for anyone who met him?

I believe in innocent until proven guilty.

Yes there are issues with jury pool but there was even more coverage of OJ and he got a good jury for him.

The judge can decide how much evidence of other crimes will be allowed. It doesn't open the flood gates for everyone who met him. It opens the flood gates for everyone he met and raped.

The judge can decide if it's admissible. If you have a lot of women without criminal history of different bavpckgrounds and races telling the same story, it makes conspiracy or other motives unlikely.

How many celebrities or other people have you ever heard of that have 50 different people saying they were drugged and raped by them? Sometimes the simple, common sense answer is the best. I don't see any injustice in this case, or in Sharoers case, of allowing other women to testify.

 

[Bleu Raeder]

I wonder if any of the universities taking away the honorary degrees are giving the money back?

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

Full monte, these are good questions and arguments you bring up. Criminal defense attys argue mightily against evidence of other crimes because it can make a case unwinnable for the prosecution unwinnable for the defense. The Cosby case is the perfect example. The state probably can't win a single complaint case against Cosby without evidence of a pattern. Cosby probably can't win if the state parades a bunch of women on the stand who say they were drugged and raped too.

As to your first point, you raise the important distinction between putting on evidence of another conviction, a proven crime, versus putting on evidence of a crime that has not been proven, as with the Cosby allegations. This is what defense attys argue, that is, if you allow evidence of other crimes they are compelled to defend that crime as well.

It's an argument defendants can lose in states that allow other crimes evidence to show pattern. It is discretionary with the court and the other crimes evidence must be very similar. In some states that evidence can be used even when there was no conviction for the earlier crime.

The rule is other crimes evidence is not admissible. The exception is for method, knowledge, pattern or intent. The Cosby and Sharper cases are the exact type of cases the exception would apply in. In some states the women Cosby assaulted in the past could testify, even if there is no conviction. I know this because I have used other crime evidence in trials when I was a prosecutor.

Here is a good article on the subject as it relates to Cosby. You argument that other crimes evidence is too highly prejudicial to be used is fair and what many believe the law should be. But in many states that's not the law, other crimes evidence is admissible.

The character evidence is a different issue. You could not put in evidence that Cosby was in a biker gang or that he was a heroin user just to show he was a bad guy. The evidence would have to be of other crimes to show system and intent.
What could happen to Bill Cosby | News - Channel3000.com

if i'm following this brings up an interesting dilemma
let's say state X doesn't allow "method, knowledge, pattern or intent" accusations and state Y does
a victim from state X could testify in state Y's case and if (and only if) a conviction was reached then Y could testify for X
is this accurate?