Bill Cosby released from prison

Post Reply New Topic

I'n hoping they will now reintroduce the Cosby show back on cable. We need Dr Huxtable's wisdom in these dark times

The 5th amendment of the US Constitution protects the defendant from being forced to testify against themselves. This is true in civil cases (where the lawsuit is about equity and damages) as well as criminal cases. This is because the government should not be allowed to force you to testify in a deposition for a civil case and then using the deposition in a criminal case. Similar to being forced to testify in Congress about actions you committed that might be criminal. The idea is that there should not be an end run around the 5th amendment. However, if the district attorney agrees to not bring a criminal case against a defendant, then the defendant can be forced to testify in a civil case because the 5th amendment no longer applies (you cannot be tried for a crime).

In this case, the former DA reviewed the evidence and decided that he could not get a conviction based on the evidence provided to him of beyond a reasonable doubt. However, he felt that the victim could get a monetary reward in civil court which does not have a strict level proof (I think they use preponderance of evidence instead). Even there, the victim could not get an award from the court unless they could get Cosby to admit to what he did. Cosby was not required to testify as long as criminal charges were hung over his head. The former DA therefore publicly announced (but did not put in writing) that he was not going to charge Mr. Crosby for any crime that he admitted to while under oath in the civil case. The result was that Mr. Crosby was required to testify in the civil case and Mr. Crosby ended up settling with the victim for $3.4 million.

Years later, a new DA was running for office. Caught up in the MeToo moment, part of the new DA's campaign was that he was going charge and try to convict Mr. Crosby as at the time, the statute of limitations had not run out. He probably did not know about the previous DA's dealing with Mr. Crosby and the deal that was made since it was not a signed agreement (but had been publicly stated in the newspapers). The new DA was elected into office and did as he promised, using the testimony from civil case, and got a conviction. Whether Mr. Crosby's lawyers objected to the recorded testimony from the civil case being used or not, I do not know. I am sure that they did, at least to preserve record for appeal (which is why defense attorney's object to quite a few things, hoping that something sticks for appeal). If they did object, the trial judge overrode the objection which they can do absent direction from a higher court. Because of that testimony, the new DA was able to get the jury to convict on a charge that without the testimony, probably would not have been able to get the conviction.

Mr. Crosby's attorneys appealed the case (which you would expect in a case that went to trial) and the high court ruled that even though it was not written, the agreement of the previous DA was publicly known and as such, had to be followed by subsequent DAs. Also, the court found that Mr. Crosby probably would not have testified in the civil case had it not been for that agreement. Thus, the new DA did an end run of Mr. Crosby's 5th amendment rights and the conviction was tossed. They also said that Mr. Crosby cannot be tried again for that particular victim because the high court even saw that without the testimony, there would have been no conviction, as well as a sanction against the new DA for doing this end run. Thus, Mr. Crosby was freed from prison and his criminal record cleared, as if he committed no crime. That does not mean however that Mr. Crosby did not commit the crime. It simply means that in the end, the DA could not prove it without using unconstitutional means.

Now the new DA can appeal to the US Supreme Court but given the current makeup, I doubt it would be successful. This should be a warning to future DAs that if they decide to help a victim win a civil suit, they need to give up the criminal charged forever. Also, for defense attorneys, regardless of pubic statements regarding an agreement, they need to get it in writing.

So basically - the powers that be decided to give Cosby the following deal: admit to X so that the state (and plaintiff) can win the CIVIL case, and we wont even charge you in a criminal case- for X. But later they double crossed Cosby by doing just that- using his confession to X as evidence against him a criminal case? That would be a dirty deal- even if it was with a dirty person.

It wasn't a technicality. It was a serious violation of his right to due process.

The previous District Attorney saw nearly no chance of successfully prosecuting Crosby without Crosby's testimony. So instead, to get something out of it, he announced that they would not prosecute Crosby. With this, Crosby could not plead the 5th amendment in a deposition for a lawsuit with a victim.

Then, ten years later, a new District Attorney prosecuted Crosby in spite of the previous District Attorney's public statements that required Crosby to admit his crime and he used Crosby's admissions against him in trial and Crosby was convicted.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania came down hard against the District Attorney in their opinion. I didn't read the decision in detail, but from what I did read, it is very clear that the prosecutor is not permitted to try Crosby again on those charges. They flat out said that the prosecutor's statement that Crosby would not be prosecuted is binding on future prosecutors.

Unless I completely misunderstood the decision, there is zero chance that the prosecutor can prosecute Crosby again for that crime. They could possibly try him on other cases, but I think that the statute of limitations has expired.

[...] I first heard of Cosby when my dad came home with a record of this comedy act. This must have been early 60s? There was a picture of him on the front cover. The record was hilarious. "Lord, what's a cubit".  Anyone else remember that?

So basically - the powers that be decided to give Cosby the following deal: admit to X so that the state (and plaintiff) can win the CIVIL case, and we wont even charge you in a criminal case- for X.

But later they double crossed Cosby by doing just that- using his confession to X as evidence against him a criminal case?

That would be a dirty deal- even if it was with a dirty person.

Oh okay, that makes sense. So the DA didn't have any other evidence they could use against Cosby, besides the tainted confession though? I mean they didn't need a tainted confession to try to convict Harvey Weinstein, so why do you need a confession with Cosby therefore, as opposed to the type of evidence they used against Weinstein?

I agree with you. I was only explaining to ironpony what was in the article he posted. Some of the information turned out to be wrong. Further coverage stated he could not be retried.

Apparently there is some question as to whether or not his due process rights were violated. My understanding is there is no document, signed by the judge, stating the prosecution would not go forward with the criminal charges. Apparently the prosecutor stated it publicly, but that still does not make it a legal agreement, as my understanding of it.

So, a different point of view would be the prosecutor did lie about not pursuing criminal charges, and Cosby believed him BUT without getting the "deal" on paper. Where were his attorneys if this was the situation?

I do believe that due process rights are more important than any actual crime because over the long haul, our country is based on some rights and sometimes criminals are let go "on a technicality." I think "technicality" is a term used to describe a situation in which a court case would be thrown out that had nothing to do with whether or not the actual crime was committed. That was the sense I was using.

I first heard of Cosby when my dad came home with a record of this comedy act. This must have been early 60s? There was a picture of him on the front cover. The record was hilarious. "Lord, what's a cubit"

Anyone else remember that?

Oh okay, that makes sense. So the DA didn't have any other evidence they could use against Cosby, besides the tainted confession though? I mean they didn't need a tainted confession to try to convict Harvey Weinstein, so why do you need a confession with Cosby therefore, as opposed to the type of evidence they used against Weinstein?