Bill Cosby released from prison

Post Reply New Topic

He's admitted it, that admission just wasn't admissible. It isn't slander when the actions described aren't denied.

Don't mistake not being found criminally liable with having not done the action.

If I rob you but don't get convicted for it you still got robbed and I'm still the guy who did it and you're not slandering me to call me a robber in that circumstance.

Bill Cosby is a rapist and I dare him to sue one of his victims for alleging it.

Well yah see... I'm not very familiar with his art. I know he sponsored Willy T Ribbs back in the day and that's a positive no matter how I feel about Cosby as a person.

The #Meetoo movement will have us bury his body of work.

Lets bury Cosby.

There's nothing wrong with no longer celebrating it. It doesn't mean it will become memory-holed.

I've got one of his records, my ex bought me it and a bottle of NyQuil for my birthday.

He's 83, your wish will come true sooner than later

I've got all his "Fat Albert" cartoons recorded on VHS somewhere

Exactly. As with OJ, we all know he did it. We just cant use the machinery of the state to punish him for it because of the rules of due process.

Sixty women came forth as victims, he even confessed, and hasnt denied it.

I wish that he werent guilty. I still have his Sixties comedy albums from my childhood. The one with the "Monster Chicken Heart" was a part of my growing up. Just like watching the Huxtables was part of the growing up of the next generation of folks younger after me. Dont want it to be true, but I cant deny the evidence.

I doubt anyone disposed of their Bill Cosby collection as it's likely it will be worth a pretty penny as a collectors item in a few years once he passes away.

So why did Cosby confess in the original civil case? If prosecutors didn't have any other evidence on him, why wouldn't he just remain silent hoping to prove him guilty, rather than give them a freebie?

It’s important to note that the depositions Cosby gave about drugs and women in 2005 were used as evidence in both the first trial, which ended in a hung jury, and the second trial, in which he was ultimately convicted of three felonies. Because the DA/prosecutor (Bruce Castor) removed the threat of criminal prosecution if Cosby agreed to making the depositions, the comedian’s attorneys successfully established that Cosby wasn’t able to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, and therefore was unable to defend himself against the criminal charges.

The court agreed with Cosby’s legal team, saying that the depositions (and specifically Cosby’s own testimony under oath) ultimately allowed prosecutors to draw a line between Cosby giving women drugs and the experience Constand said she had with him involving pills. At no time, Cosby’s lawyers argued, did the comedian expect that his sworn testimony in the civil case would ever see the light of day, let alone in criminal court.

Bruce Castor’s successors reopened the case and charged Cosby in 2015, just days before the 12-year statute of limitations was set to expire.

There were two trials. The first, in 2017, ended after jurors were unable to reach a unanimous verdict. The second jury found Cosby guilty of all three counts of felony indecent assault, and he was sentenced to state prison for between three-and-ten years. Cosby’s legal team filed several post-sentence motions seeking a new trial that were denied.
five women who accused Cosby of drugging and sexually assaulting them in the 1980s testified in the second trial. Despite Cosby’s legal team’s best efforts to prevent this evidence from being presented, the court ultimately decided to allow it, saying it demonstrated a pattern of behavior consistent with Constand’s accusations. It should be noted that whether to allow these types of witnesses can vary from state to state. In Pennsylvania, it is legal to call this type of witness.

Cosby's lawyers argued that both the testimonies of the five women in the second trial and Cosby’s own testimony to using quaaludes with women, without being able to exercise his Fifth Amendment right, prejudiced the jury. They also cited the former DA’s agreement to not prosecute Cosby if he was deposed under oath.

The reasons for Cosby's jail sentence being thrown out was because the new DA had conducted the second trial inappropriately by using Cosby's initial admission which was done with the understanding he was not subject to prosecution which thus invalidates the sentence.

The rules of civil procedure are different than the rules of criminal procedure. The 2 biggest ones in this case are:

1) In criminal cases, the plaintiff (the prosecutor) must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant has committed the crime. In a civil court, the plaintiff must only prove with a preponderance of evidence that the defendant committed the act.

2) In criminal court, the defendant is never required to testify against themselves unless they choose to. The courts cannot require it. In a civil case, a defendant can be required to testify against themselves unless the testimony can be used in criminal court to convict of a crime.

So in 2004/2005, the DA at the time knew that there would not be enough evidence to convict in criminal court. However, he told the victim to pursue the case in civil court where it might be enough. However, without Crosby's testimony, there was not enough evidence in civil court either and Crosby could not be forced to testify as long as there was the possibility of criminal charges. To help the victim force Crosby to testify, the DA, through public media, informed the courts and society that he would not pursue criminal charges, but never got the agreement in writing. With that off the table, Crosby was forced to testify in the civil case. BTW, in the civil case, Crosby settled with the victim for $3.4 million.

Now, fast forward 10 years where there is a new DA and probably a new judge (since in Pennsylvania, judges and DAs are elected to their positions) and with the #MeToo movement in full steam, it because politically expedient to charge Bill Crosby, regardless of any Constitutional issues. In the trial, I am sure Crosby's attorneys objected to what the state was doing but the judge allowed it anyways. After Crosby was convicted, his attorneys appealed first to the court of appeals and then to the PA High Court. As you get higher in the court process, the judges are more likely to be appointed rather than elected and thus, more immune to public opinion of the movement of the day, including #MeToo. The High Court therefore found that the new DA violated Crosby's 5th amendment rights and that the oral contract the old DA made through public media was contingent upon all succeeding DAs. The High Court also disallowed a new trial because 1) The evidence was tainted and 2) The statute of limitations has expired.

So it is not that Crosby chose to testify in the civil trial, it is that he was forced to and then the new DA tried to do an end run around the 5th amendment using the civil case even though Crosby has been told that the deposition would not be used in a criminal case.

As far as whether Crosby committed the crime, he admitted to it in civil court. He is right up there with OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony. The state simply cannot prosecute him for the crime.

Being found Not Guilty is different from being innocent (that is why the jury is required to use the term "not guilty" rather than "innocent")

Interesting.

So Cosby was forced to testify against himself in civil court by admitting to X. But he could not have been forced to do that in criminal court, nor could he have been forced to admit to X even in that same civil trial ...IF...the prosecuting DA had not promised Cosby that what he said would never been used against Cosby in a criminal trial.


Hmmm...

What Cosby was actually "forced" to do was probably simply taking the stand and testifying (which they couldnt force him to do in a criminal trial). And because there are laws against perjury he was then "forced" to tell the truth.

So he was forced to spill the beans, and to loose the lawsuit. But was supposed to be then rendered immune to criminal prosecution.

Just thinking aloud here. Dont mind me.

But then a later DA reneged on the deal, and used Cosby's admission against Cosby in a criminal trial.

Oh okay, but why did Cosby admit to the crime at all? You say he was forced to, because it was a civil case, but what would have happened to him if he didn't admit to it? What if he just said it didn't happen and he was innocent? In a civil case, do you have to admit the crime legally, or what happens if you don't?

Then it was never possible to get a conviction based on confession. He would never testify against himself if not forced to do so. The only thing they could have done would be to convict him using outside evidence. Too late for that now.