83 year old Bill Cosby free. Due Process & Statute of Limitations issues = basis for reversal.
Detrimental Reliance & Fundamental Fairness = due process reasons cited by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
1 Like
Last year, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed to hear two points in Cosbyâs appeal to overturn his 2018 sexual assault conviction.
MORE: Bill Cosby sentenced to 3 to 10 years in state prison with no bail during appeals
One was the admission into trial of âprior bad actsâ witnesses and Cosbyâs 2005-2006 quaalude deposition. The appeal argued that the trial judge erred in allowing Cosbyâs prior deposition about using quaaludes during consensual sexual encounters with women in the 1970s at trial.
The second point was a written agreement from previous Montgomery County prosecutor Bruce Castor not to criminally prosecute Cosby in the Constand case. Castor had testified that while he was district attorney, he promised Cosby he would not file criminal charges if the entertainer would testify in a civil lawsuit Constand filed against Cosby in 2005. Cosby testified during four days of depositions by Constandâs attorneys, and the civil lawsuit was settled for more than $3 million in 2006. Prosecutor Kevin R. Steele later brought criminal charges against Cosby in 2015 after succeeding Castor as the countyâs district attorney.
If anyone is interested in reading the decision.
4 Likes
This makes me puke -
8 Likes
Horrible. Well, at least he did have to go to jail and his reputation is ruined.
5 Likes
He seems to have sent out a tweet?
He wants his reputation back and is erroneously assuming that the release vindicates him.
Nope. Too many witnesses and victims of his abuse for decades.
3 Likes
Sad but not surprising. Putting aside the due process issues, trial judges need to do it better and cleaner in these high profile cases. I predict the Chauvin trial will be the next.
While the case outcome is bad, the legal decision is good.
The decision means that the word of a prosecutor binds the entire prosecutorâs officeânot just the prosecutor who made the promise.
Prosecutors enjoy a tremendous amount of discretion and authority on which there needs to be Constitutional limits.
Bill Cosbyâs reputation is destroyed; he has been imprisoned for about 3 years and is in a state of declining health. His alleged acts were horrible, but he trusted a prosecutor and testified truthfully during a deposition in a civil case for which he subsequently paid out a few million dollars. Otherwise, Bill Cosby could have refused to testify in the civil matter on 5th amendment grounds regarding self incrimination. All of this means that he has paid a price albeit an inadequate price.
I am not for Bill Cosby; I am for our Constitution and for our legal system which is subject to Constitutional restraints in the interest of fairness / due process.
Sometimes bad people make good law.
21 Likes
100% agree. Many people wonât appreciate why this decision is important.
6 Likes
I understand the legal reasoning, but at the end of the day a wealthy man who has the means to pay attorneys is free. After how many womenâs lives were ruinedâŠ
I may have a biased view here as I have spent the last 4 years in a messy legal battle and have seen up close how the justice systems works much better for those with power and moneyâŠ
6 Likes
One also has to wonder if a non-wealthy person who is incorrectly (in a legal sense) convicted is likely to be able to get such a conviction overturned.
6 Likes
Bottom line is he admitted doping and raping unconscious women. I just hope that he remains a pariah and that the morning and late night talk shows donât book him on some sort of âfeeling sorry for the old manâ tour.
18 Likes
Amen!
I canât imagine that happening. Phylicia Rashad Is being heavily criticized for supporting Cosby, and rightly so.
7 Likes
Sheâs likely hoping âThe Cosby Showâ will resume on TV Land, etc. and she can collect more in residuals. (But my mind always goes to a mercenary motive).
3 Likes
Phylicia Rashad is a Dean at Howard University. This is not a good look for them and I hope the students there will protest her being in that position although Iâm not hopeful that the administration will respond. She shouldnât be in a position of authority over college students if sheâs going to defend Cosby.
Clair Huxtable would never defend that monster.
2 Likes
Yes, Clair Huxtable would have divorced him! But the PA court was correct in overturning this, and it should not have taken this long. He made a deal with the prosecutor that he would not be criminally prosecuted if he told the truth in a civil deposition. He did tell the truth (or at least enough of it to be liable), and he paid her a substantial amount of money, surely with a keep quiet clause. She cannot have it both ways. I would not be at all surprised if he now sues her for return of the settlement money, and sues the state of PA for having reneged on that agreement and caused him and his family tremendous suffering.
3 Likes
Since that is unlikely, she should focus on the immediate threat of losing her Howard job.
5 Likes
Will not be able to sue for return of any of the $3 million settlement unless the plaintiff in that civil suit violates some material term of the settlement agreementâwhich is unlikely to occur as the most common material part of a settlement agreement is to withdraw the lawsuit with prejudice.
If Cosby sued for return of the settlement money, then, presumably, the lawsuit could be reinstated & Cosby could be forced to testify under penalty of perjury. In short, Cosby has no grounds to seek a return of the settlement money and any attempt to do so could open Cosby to further civil liability & to potential criminal charges for perjury.
1 Like
Maybe a lawyer here can answer a question about this case for meâwas there an oral or a written agreement between the prosecutor (Castor) and Cosby? On MSNBC, I heard a legal expert (prosecutor) say that there wasnât a written agreement. Later, I read that there was one. If there were only an oral agreement would this have changed anything?
1 Like
https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/explainer-bill-cosbys-conviction-overturned-78590160
During a court hearing weeks after Cosbyâs 2015 arrest, Castor testified that he promised Cosby he wouldnât be prosecuted in the hopes that it would persuade the actor to testify in a civil case brought by Constand and allow her to win damages. Castor acknowledged the only place the matter was put in writing was in the 2005 press release announcing his decision not to prosecute, but said his decision was meant to shield Cosby from prosecution âfor all time.â
The courtâs decision is based on the fact that Cosby relied on the promise not to prosecute. Oral or written, not sure it makes any difference because what defendant would agree to waive his fifth amendment rights and testify to incriminating information unless he was sure he wouldnât be prosecuted in the future using that same testimony? But oral promises are enforceable if certain provisions like an offer, acceptance and consideration are met. The reason Castor gave the promise was because he knew he didnât have the facts to convict Cosby way back then. Nothing changed in the intervening years except the new DA ran on convicting Cosby and he decided he wasnât bound by Castorâs promise and introduced the testimony from the civil trial.
I imagine all criminal attorneys will be looking to get those agreements/promises in writing with the proper future protections going forward, if they havenât before now. All defendants should be happy with the courtâs decisionâŠ.itâs fundamental fairness at its core. Prosecutors need to be held to their word and a promise not to prosecute (or any promise) needs to bind the office not the DA du jour otherwise itâs meaningless.
7 Likes