wilked
Footballguy
His sentence was 3-10 yrs and he has done 3. What defines exactly when released when it’s a range?
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Bill Cosby needs a new Media Manager (and to stop raping) (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Gawain
- Start date
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Apparently a DA promised him immunity if he testified in a civil trial. He testified without invoking his fifth amendment rights, and then the state turned around and prosecuted him based on that testimony. He should absolutely walk free, and it is not a close a decision. It's a straightforward case of prosecutorial misconduct.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
BroncoFreak_2K3
sucker for Orange
apalmer
Footballguy
He was eligible for parole at 3 years, but it was denied because he refused to admit guilt and therefore didn't "show remorse" for his crimes.
timschochet
Footballguy
If that is true then you’re correct, he should walk free. But it’s still a frustrating unjust result. By unjust I don’t mean legally wrong; I get there is a difference.
timschochet
Footballguy
ETA- but I don’t know, at this moment, if it’s as cut and dried as you’re suggesting. Maybe it is. But this conviction was appealed in lower courts and denied every step of the way until now. What was their reasoning? I’d like to know that before judging whether this latest decision was correct. It sounds like it is but is there something we’re missing?
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
I can get on board with this. I don't think anybody believes that Cosby isn't a rapist or that he doesn't deserve to be in prison. He is and he does. But law enforcement and prosecutors need to play by the rules, and when they don't, the outcome is that guilty people get to walk. Just chiming in with agreement.
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
It’s unclear to me, from what I’ve read, whether the first prosecutor “cut a deal” to not prosecute Cosby or whether he just informed Cosby that he wasn’t being prosecuted and thus had no 5th Amendment defense to testifying in the civil case. But I don’t think it makes much difference.
Some representation was relied on to waive his 5th Amendment privilege and those statements were then used against him.
Some representation was relied on to waive his 5th Amendment privilege and those statements were then used against him.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Hard to imagine that the lead lawyer that defended Trump in his second impeachment trial would have done something so unethical.
ETA: I’m leaving this snarky comment but it’s been pointed out to me below that Castor wasn’t the one that acted unethically. Apologies to Mr. Castor.
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Cowboysfan8
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
Cosby’s lawyer called this a “victory for black America.”
Cowboysfan8
Footballguy
Doug B
Footballguy
Castor actually kept his word. It was Castor's successor in the DA's office, Kevin Steele, that "tore up" the agreement and pursued criminal charges.
Tom Servo
Nittany Beavers
In this case, probably too many ducks:
“The Supreme Court agreed to review two aspects of the case that Cosby’s lawyers challenged. The first involved the judge’s decision to let prosecutors call five other accusers. The other examined Cosby’s argument that he had an agreement with a former prosecutor that he’d never be charged.”
Doug B
Footballguy
Also, there was a second prong to the overturn: Even the dissenting justices noted that it was out-of-bounds for the prosecution to have been allowed to admit testimony from accusers that had never pressed charges. From Justice Thomas Saylor's dissent:
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
Doug B
Footballguy
Is it? I'm far from an expert, but I had thought that exchanges of immunity for testimony were common in civil trials, otherwise crucial witnesses could and would invoke 5th amendment protections. Recall that this was a deal Castor made with Cosby to secure his depositions in the Andrea Constant civil case in 2005.
Last edited by a moderator:
Drunken Cowboy
Footballguy
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
Why would a DA work to secure anyone's testimony in a civil trial? What interest does the state have in that? Immunity is often offered in exchange for testimony to secure criminal convictions against other (presumably more important targets). It is not often offered in order to compel testimony in a civil trial for the benefit of a single litigant. I can't think of a reason for a DA to do that other than if the DA expected to be getting a cut of the resulting civil settlement.
Doug B
Footballguy
That's what I get for listening to legal experts on the radio news explaining all this. I'm pretty much giving their explanations to you verbatim.
It turns out that Cosby settled the Constand civil suit in 2006 under confidential terms (later revealed to be $3.5 million) and that his depositions were sealed until 2015. Maybe a better way to explain what happened is that Castor essentially tricked Cosby into agreeing to be deposed, and that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court found it legally out-of-bounds to build a case based on depositions elicited via trickery?
Like I said -- no expert here. No one seems to doubt that Castor made a deal with Cosby, unusual though it may be.
Last edited by a moderator:
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
It seems the prosecution knowingly risked reversal by presenting evidence in the criminal trial which they knew was problematic. The questions I have are whether the prosecution could have obtained a conviction without that evidence and whether Cosby’s defense team game planned this at the time he gave that deposition.
On the later - seems like a bad game to play, given that Cosby spent 3 years in a maximum security prison.
apalmer
Footballguy
Castor expressly told his successor that he did it to give the victim a chance at "some form of justice" through the civil proceedings after determining that he didn't have enough evidence to win a criminal case. He also indicated that the victim's attorney (who probably did get a contingent fee out of the civil case) agreed with the approach.
Significantly, the results of the civil case were part of the reason the majority held that the remedy had to be non-prosecution rather than just suppression of the deposition testimony (i.e., suppression doesn't make him whole because his reliance on Castor's promise also cost him millions of dollars).
Doug B
Footballguy
Recall, though, that Cosby's legal team agreed to let Cosby be deposed in 2005 and that the deposition was meant to be sealed for a long, long time. The 2015 release of the depositions was forced, somehow ... it wasn't like some clock ran out.
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
I finally convinced myself to do what I always yell at others for not doing and read the decision. And, well, it's a tough case because Castor did something very, very weird. There's no non-prosecution agreement. There's no contact, whatsoever, with either Constand's attorneys or Cosby's civil attorneys. Cosby's then criminal attorney is dead. The "signed" press release, on it's own, would normally be just a declination to prosecute. And even Castor's testimony is weird as he seems to suggest that he could have revived a prosecution if "Cosby confessed" or if other evidence was found.
I absolutely agree that if, as a matter of fact, Cosby relied on a representation of the DA that he could not be prosecuted in order to waive his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination, then the conviction is invalid. I just think the factual record on that is super murky.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
Am I misreading the case? The only lawyer he appeared to talk to at the time was Phillips, who was Cosby's criminal counsel. Constand and her lawyers didn't learn about the declination of prosecution until the press release came out.
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
What I'm really struggling with is the Court's determination that the press release alone was sufficient to induce Cosby's reasonable reliance in waiving his rights. The Court takes pains to say that the press release never states that Castor or his successor could revisit the decision, but why would it? Prosecutors can always revisit a decision to not prosecute when presented with new evidence. Or just because they disagree with their predecessors' assessment of the existing evidence.
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
They really couldn't keep him from being deposed. They could have instructed him not to answer certain questions on the basis of the privilege against self-incrimination. It's debatable how much that would have helped his civil defense as it would have permitted the jury to draw an adverse inference from his invocation of the privilege.
Bob Sacamano
Footballguy
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
At minimum, it seems this decision is proving a great platform for people to show their hypocrisy.
Cold Dead Hands
Footballguy
He is a POS but I still love the Cosby Show.
culdeus
Footballguy
Really? I mean the guy did three years at 85 in max. Feel like you could be on both sides of this one pretty easy no matter where you were on the me too stuff.
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
The issue is our reaction to the suppression of evidence of criminal guilt. There’s a cost to our belief in due process - sometimes, or often perhaps, the clearly guilty go free. That’s not “injustice.”
apalmer
Footballguy
Castor's letter to his successor says
It may be a matter of "well, we knew it was being discussed as a way of helping us, but we didn't know he would actually do it until we saw it in the paper."
E Street Brat
Footballguy
Punxsutawney Phil
Footballguy
What about all of the other rape allegations? This guy was a serial rapist. Unfortunately, someone didn't shank him in prison.
Last edited by a moderator:
Desert_Power
Footballguy
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
Here is what Constand's attorney's testified.
Castor also testified that he directed Ferman to contact Constand's attorney, but Ferman did not recall such a conversation. There was also language in the settlement agreement prohibiting Constand from initiating a criminal complaint.
The trial court made factual findings that there was no agreement and specifically took issue with Castor's credibility, but again, the PA S. Ct. majority opinion expressly punts on this (and also on the question of whether Castor had the legal authority to bind his successor) to rule that the press release alone was sufficient to trigger Cosby's reliance.
Now, one of Cosby's lawyers did testify that he relied on Phillips (again, he was dead by the time the trial court found facts on this) and Castor, but also that he never spoke to Castor about it.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
I get that this is all inside baseball stuff. And it doesn't necessarily matter whether Constand's lawyers were in the loop if a representation was made to Phillips. But this would have been highly weird and borderline unethical for a DA (IMO) if it were completely papered over. The fact that it wasn't reflects extremely poorly on Castor, IMO, and I think mitigates some concerns that Ferman was willfully indifferent to Cosby's 5th Amendment rights, because I think she has to stand up for her own prerogative to make independent prosecution decisions that aren't bound by her predecessor.
Mrs. Rannous
Footballguy
dickey moe
Fingerpicker
Worse than OJ.
GroveDiesel
Footballguy
The end result is quite clearly not justice for all of his victims. I’m not saying that the decision to overturn his conviction is wrong, the DA pretty clearly screwed this thing up.
Ultimately, I think folks are simply talking about two different forms of justice: legal justice versus social justice. Most likely would agree, maybe grudgingly, that legal justice is being done. I think most would also agree that social justice is not being done.
rockaction
Footballguy
The procedural rules being adhered to are the guarantee of justice for all. I get what you're saying about "social justice" and "legal justice," but I disagree. There's just justice, blind and given to all.
Last edited by a moderator:
I don’t believe the criminal justice system is designed to obtain “justice” for the victims. That is better left to the civil process.
The criminal justice system exists to ensure justice for everyone - victims, society, and defendant. When you deny justice to one, you deny justice to all.
