Page 9 of 9 [ 134 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 26,930
Location: temperate zone

06 Jul 2021, 3:05 am

ironpony wrote:
But loosing a lot of money is still a big deal to a lot of people so how is being forced to tell the truth worse in criminal law therefore?
because you get thrown in prison, or get executed for murder, etc. Not the same thing as giving someone money because they slipped on the floor of your store that you mopped.



demeus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 639

06 Jul 2021, 5:28 am

Get rid of the 5th Amendment and promise you, police will pull over BIPOCs and force them to confess to all sorts of crimes with a gun pressed against their heads. Why do you think GW Bush as so interested in keeping people off of US soil. Easier to get someone to confess if you torture them. Our civil rights have already been eroded too much in my opinion (particularly the 4th amendment).

As for civil vs criminal trial, in a criminal trial, the government is trying to take away for freedom. That has quite a higher value than a civil trial where you are simply trying to get money or implement new rules for an organization to operate. Hell, you might not even pay off the judgement. Look at OJ Simpson.

And remember, the only way you are forced to incriminate yourself in a civil trial (or Congressional Hearing) is if you cannot be tried for a crime in connection with your testimony. Otherwise, the 5th still applied, even is a civil trial.



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,966
Location: Melbourne, Australia

06 Jul 2021, 6:37 am

There is another aspect to the case which doesn't get too much mention as well:

The judge in the case had a prior connection to (and reported animosity towards) the prosecutor who had previously declined to press charges, commencing around the time he had run against the prosecutor for the position of County district Attorney:

Quote:
An underdog from the outset, Norristown defense attorney Steven T. O'Neill officially announced he will seek the office of Montgomery County district attorney next year.

O'Neill, who threw his hat into the race last week, will go up against First Assistant District Attorney Bruce L. Castor Jr., long thought to be heir apparent to District Attorney Michael D. Marino.

Source: https://www.mcall.com/news/mc-xpm-1998-12-22-3220124-story.html
There was also the added complication that the judge was having an affair with a subordinate of the prosecutor at the time they were running against each other (and potentially blamed him for the actions of that subordinate at a debate which have have caused him to be unsuccesful):
Quote:
It was 1998 – an underdog from the outset, Norristown defense attorney Steven T. O’Neill announced he was putting his bid in for the office of Montgomery County district attorney. His opponent? Bruce Castor, the former prosecutor who declined to prosecute Cosby for the sexual assault allegations after publicly stating he found “insufficient, credible and admissible evidence exists upon which any charge against Mr. Cosby could be sustained beyond a reasonable doubt.”

As the two were campaigning in ’98 and early ’99, the married O’Neill was allegedly carrying on a love affair with Maureen Coggins, one of the assistant district attorneys under Castor’s watch – and according to our sources, O’Neill’s wife left him as a result.

“There came a time during the campaign when O’Neill fell gravely ill with some kind of life-threatening infection, I think in his ear,” said a source who was involved in the campaign. “While it was touch and go, he and his wife reconciled, though O’Neill had promised to divorce his wife and marry this younger woman. This really, really pissed off the girl in the [district attorneys] office who was in love with O’Neill. I still did not know any of this. The girl started showing up at political events where Castor and O’Neill were campaigning.”

O’Neill and Castor were preparing for a debate in Willow Grove in Upper Moreland Township, Pennsylvania. With Coggins there, front-and-center wearing a “Castor 4 DA” pin, the debate took a toll on O’Neill, a source that was there tells us.

“I thought the girl, Maureen Coggins was her name, was coming to support Castor, her boss,” our source continued. “Naturally, as trial lawyers, both O’Neill and Castor were accomplished at speaking in public. But that night, while Castor was energized and fully conversant … O’Neill was absolutely terrible. Nervous, sweating, stammering, no focus. Just really bad.”

The Montgomery County Republican Party Chairman, Frank Bartle, allegedly received a phone call from the current chair of the Montgomery County Republican Party, Bill Donnelly, complaining about Castor “playing dirty by putting Maureen in front of O’Neill to throw him off his game.”

Source: https://www.yc.news/2018/03/28/judge-presiding-over-cosby-trial-had-alleged-affair-with-witness-colleague-failed-to-disclose-affair-to-defense/

It had been suggested that this was (at least in part) why the judge decided that the former prosecutor's testimony (including regarding why he declined to press charges) was deemed as being "not reliable" as a witness.

There were also questions about the judge (at the time responsible for the assignment of cases between the various judges in the court) electing to take this case himself:
Quote:
The well-placed source was involved in the investigation into Bill Cosby, claiming then-newly appointed Judge O’Neill had his eyes set on the comic icon after a publicity stunt didn’t pan out.

“For being a ‘good soldier,’ the party gets O’Neill the post of County Solicitor to help him pay the bills. So, Bruce Castor was the district attorney and O’Neill was County Solicitor laying the groundwork to run for Judge the first chance he got.”

“O’Neill shortly thereafter gets elected Judge. He wants to try and draw attention to himself as different, so he pushes for the formation of a special court to deal with drug addicts giving them more treatment and less jail, which was new back then. Eventually, the district attorney’s office agreed to a test period for a Drug Court but it backfired.

“Castor got the credit for progressive thinking early on even though it was O’Neill’s publicity stunt.”

As Your Content readers know, Kevin Steele was caught red-handed reaching out to Andrea Constand’s civil attorney, Dolores Troiani, asking for any evidence she may have in her possession regarding the 2005 civil lawsuit against the comic icon.

“We know that Steele’s campaign worked in lock step with Constand’s lawyer,” the official revealed, indicating records of their meetings exist.

“Steele must justify his election and his arresting of Cosby. O’Neill assigns the Cosby case to himself to protect Steele who presented him this opportunity by making Cosby the Hail Mary pass that won the game.”

Source: https://www.yc.news/2020/08/26/judge-oneill-assigned-himself-to-preside-over-cosby-trial-worked-with-da-steele-on-charges/

There seems to have been quite a few other irregular features involved in the trials, outside of the reason given for overturning the verdict...


_________________
Quote:
"When people express opinions that differ from yours, take it as a chance to grow. Seek to understand over being understood. Be curious, not defensive. The only way to disarm another human being is by listening." - Glennon Doyle Melton

Quote:
"Never forget that you have every right to question any individual, system, movement, or group that only tolerates you when you think and behave exactly like them" - Africa Brooke

Quote:
“There was a saying that a man's true character was revealed in defeat. I thought it was also revealed in victory.”
― Alison Goodman, Eon: Dragoneye Reborn


demeus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 639

06 Jul 2021, 11:14 am

The high court did not get into the irregularities and whether the judge should have recused himself because they did not have to. All they had to do is determine if the main evidence was admissible and it was not. Everything else was fruit from the poison tree (the deposition) as far as they were concerned.

But again, this is why I believe that appeals and higher court judges should be appointed rather than elected. They are required to make the tough decisions, and indeed sometime get it wrong, but they need to be able to do that without having to worry about public opinion at the time.



ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 37
Posts: 3,310
Location: canada

06 Jul 2021, 3:29 pm

demeus wrote:
Get rid of the 5th Amendment and promise you, police will pull over BIPOCs and force them to confess to all sorts of crimes with a gun pressed against their heads. Why do you think GW Bush as so interested in keeping people off of US soil. Easier to get someone to confess if you torture them. Our civil rights have already been eroded too much in my opinion (particularly the 4th amendment).

As for civil vs criminal trial, in a criminal trial, the government is trying to take away for freedom. That has quite a higher value than a civil trial where you are simply trying to get money or implement new rules for an organization to operate. Hell, you might not even pay off the judgement. Look at OJ Simpson.

And remember, the only way you are forced to incriminate yourself in a civil trial (or Congressional Hearing) is if you cannot be tried for a crime in connection with your testimony. Otherwise, the 5th still applied, even is a civil trial.


But the 5th amendment doesn't exist in civil cases, and you do not see anyone putting a gun to Cosby's head to get him to talk. I'm talking about forcing the defendant to testify against himself in the courtroom, not making it legal for any cop to put a gun to someone's head to make them talk. Take away the 5th amendment, but only when defendants are subpeonaed to testify against themselves in court, such as in a civil case.



demeus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 639

06 Jul 2021, 3:55 pm

ironpony wrote:
demeus wrote:
Get rid of the 5th Amendment and promise you, police will pull over BIPOCs and force them to confess to all sorts of crimes with a gun pressed against their heads. Why do you think GW Bush as so interested in keeping people off of US soil. Easier to get someone to confess if you torture them. Our civil rights have already been eroded too much in my opinion (particularly the 4th amendment).

As for civil vs criminal trial, in a criminal trial, the government is trying to take away for freedom. That has quite a higher value than a civil trial where you are simply trying to get money or implement new rules for an organization to operate. Hell, you might not even pay off the judgement. Look at OJ Simpson.

And remember, the only way you are forced to incriminate yourself in a civil trial (or Congressional Hearing) is if you cannot be tried for a crime in connection with your testimony. Otherwise, the 5th still applied, even is a civil trial.


So if the evidence of a criminal trial is week, the DA can simply have the victim file a civil lawsuit to force the defendant to incriminate themselves. I can think of millions of ways that can go wrong.

The reason the 5th amendment does not apply in civil cases is that most of the time, the case is a disagreement between 2 private individuals, not the government. However, that does not mean that you can be forced to admit to a crime, period. Otherwise, payday loan companies (and possibly any creditor) will try to get you to admit to fraud in a civil case just so that they can threaten you with a criminal case. Many creditors already do that illegally. Imagine if we opened that Pandora's Box.

But the 5th amendment doesn't exist in civil cases, and you do not see anyone putting a gun to Cosby's head to get him to talk. I'm talking about forcing the defendant to testify against himself in the courtroom, not making it legal for any cop to put a gun to someone's head to make them talk. Take away the 5th amendment, but only when defendants are subpeonaed to testify against themselves in court, such as in a civil case.