|
Probably Magic posted:Could somebody explain this Cosby release to my pea-sized brain?
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2021 18:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 21:31 |
|
|
It was definitely not a great legal move to use Cosby's testimony if they thought they had any chance to get him otherwise as this result was always very possible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2021 18:47
|
|
|
Scipiotik posted:It was definitely not a great legal move to use Cosby's testimony if they thought they had any chance to get him otherwise as this result was always very possible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2021 18:48
|
|
|
DelilahFlowers posted:Also thinking that this was the only way for him to get put in prison for some amount of time Entirely possible, I am not familiar enough to know what the jurors said after the trial as to the evidence.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2021 18:52
|
|
|
This decision seems insane, in light of the following: "But the Pennsylvania Supreme Court said that District Attorney Kevin Steele, who made the decision to arrest Cosby, was obligated to stand by his predecessor’s promise not to charge Cosby. There was no evidence that promise was ever put in writing." From: https://news.yahoo.com/bill-cosby-sex-assault-conviction-163915409.html
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2021 18:56
|
|
|
I'm obviously no lawyer, but the decision to bar a retrail seems completely insane to me. The conviction being overturned because there was some fishy business is one thing, but if that's the case then you do the case again??? This is like giving someone a yellow card in football and them immediately handing the win to the other team, except "the other team" in this case is a serial rapist. It's monstrous.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2021 19:47
|
|
|
From the way it's been explained to me it's probably a combo of 1. At this point the PA Supreme Court views it would be pretty much impossible for an unbiased trial after the conviction and subsequent media storm and 2. The PA Supreme Court thinks what the DA did crossed a huge line and allowing a retrial might encourage other DAs to renege on deals in the future in the hopes that nobody notices because the worst that will happen is hey, they get to try again. Like it loving sucks that sack of poo poo is getting out but this wasn't a small procedural oopsie, they hosed up big time. It's pretty mind boggling that they didn't think an appeals court might have issues with them reaching into the bin marked "Warning you signed a deal to not use this to prosecute Bill Cosby's horrible sex crimes" for evidence to prosecute Cosby's horrible sex crimes. Mr Luxury Yacht fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Jun 30, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2021 20:10
|
|
|
Mr Luxury Yacht posted:It's pretty mind boggling that they didn't think an appeals court might have issues with them reaching into the bin marked "Warning you signed a deal to not use this to prosecute Bill Cosby's horrible sex crimes" for evidence to prosecute Cosby's horrible sex crimes. This doesn't make any sense to me because: Andenno posted:There was no evidence that promise was ever put in writing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2021 20:51
|
|
|
Andenno posted:This doesn't make any sense to me because: Skimming through the PA Supreme Court judgement itself based on what I'm reading, while there wasn't a written formal agreement between the DA and Cosby it sounds like the Supreme Court's decision hinged around the DA's public press release indicating they wouldn't criminally prosecute Cosby, since by doing so they could compel him to testify in the civil case without him being able to invoke his fifth amendment rights against self incrimination. The court's argument seems to be that all that matters was whether or not it was reasonable for Cosby to have relied on the DA's public statement of non-prosecution when he incriminated himself during the deposition in the civil case. Since the DA outright said that his intention with the press release was so that Cosby couldn't pull the 5th on the deposition, the court concluded it was reasonable. As for the lack of written agreement, they disagreed that it was necessary. PA Supreme Court posted:The trial court alternatively suggested that Cosby’s belief that he would never be So basically from what I understand is the court's argument is if the press release wasn't a promise of non prosecution, then Cosby couldn't have been forced to testify at his civil trial, and the self-incriminating statements around him drugging women from the civil trial would never have been used in the criminal trial. Whether it was written and signed didn't matter since everyone including the DA believed it was the case at the time. So my interpretation is basically the original DA hosed up big time with a vague press release that invariably bound them to not use any evidence from the Constand civil case in the later cases of all of Cosby's horrible rapes and while the later DA didn't feel bound by the agreement and used the evidence because it there was no formal written agreement, the court essentially said the press release was, because Cosby relied on it being binding when he was compelled to testify in the civil case. Basically this seems to fall pretty heavily on Castor and his poorly worded press release. Full decision is here if you're curious: https://twitter.com/SupremeCtofPA/status/1410274417503084549 Mr Luxury Yacht fucked around with this message at 22:11 on Jun 30, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2021 21:42
|
|
|
Sincere thanks for the information! Knowing a little more, it still makes me want to me pull my hair out, through no fault of yours. The "Dissenting," and "Concurring and Dissenting" opinions point out that this isn't a good precedent: Concurring and Dissenting Opinion posted:"Significantly, none of this authority [granted to district attorneys] or our case law interpreting it remotely purports to grant to district attorneys the power to impose on their successors — in perpetuity, no less — the kind of general non-prosecution agreement that Castor sought to convey to Cosby. It’s not difficult to imagine why: If district attorneys had the power to dole out irrevocable get-out-of-jail-free cards at will and without any judicial oversight, it would invite a host of abuses. And while Castor was incompetent, the mistake could have been addressed without giving Cosby a huge victory: Concurring and Dissenting Opinion posted:Here, although Cosby detrimentally relied on Castor’s inducement, we can return him to the position he enjoyed prior to being forced to surrender his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination by simply suppressing the evidence derived from the civil depositions at which he testified. We should not use Castor’s “blunder” to place Cosby in a better position than he otherwise would have been in by forever barring his prosecution. It's baffling to me that the majority concludes: 1. Castor did not have the authority to make his promise (OK) 2. Cosby was wronged by that bad promise (OK) 3. "Due process requires that the prosecutor’s promise be fulfilled" (Why is fulfilling this illegitimate promise the only remedy?)
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2021 22:45
|
|
|
For me, the thing here is that I wouldn't mind this decision so much* if I had any faith that it would be equally applied to your average citizen caught in the wheels of justice. But, sadly, there is no doubt in my mind that only rich and powerful people like Cosby will get the benefit. *Which is not to say that I'm happy Cosby is free by any means.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2021 22:55
|
|
|
The D&D #metoo thread bring used to defend a rich and powerful rapist getting off on some bullshit excuse is so on brand The idea that a prosecutor saying "hey I don't have enough evidence to charge this guy" is an immunity deal or that Cosby's high-paid team of superlawyers are unsophisticated laymen who understandably misinterpreted it is so absurd. Cosby didn't even do anything for the prosecution in exchange for a ""deal"". His team just went "hey they don't think they can get you on criminal charges so now we don't have to look guilty by invoking the fifth when we're trying to gently caress over your rape victim in civil court!" (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 13:38 on Jul 1, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 13:25
|
|
|
I think the Democrats really might have successfully killed #MeToo. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 13:35
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The #metoo thread bring used to defend a rich and powerful rapist getting off on some bullshit excuse is so on brand For liberals, the institution is sacrosanct - it matters less that a convicted rapist goes free and more that We Followed The Rules, And By Following The Rules Arrived At The Most Just Outcome. It's tangentially related to the thread at best, but it's the only link I can build between liberalism and the wordy, legalese justifications for why this wasn't a miscarriage of justice in a wealthy abuser's favor. It always leaves me feeling a bit like that trite line from No Country For Old Men and the outcome of following rules for the sake of following rules. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 13:43
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The D&D #metoo thread being used to defend a rich and powerful rapist getting off on some bullshit excuse is so on brand What? Where did this happen?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 14:07
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The D&D #metoo thread bring used to defend a rich and powerful rapist getting off on some bullshit excuse is so on brand It should be easy to quote these posts and respond to them directly, assuming they actually exist. All I'm reading is people trying to explain WHAT happened, not say it was GOOD that it happened.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 14:08
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:It should be easy to quote these posts and respond to them directly, assuming they actually exist. You seem to be operating under the confusion that justifying the process as being correct is meaningfully different from saying it's good. But also it wasn't even correct so
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 14:37
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:You seem to be operating under the confusion that justifying the process as being correct is meaningfully different from saying it's good. Using this logic you could say that explaining why the climate is changing is no different than saying it's a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 15:13
|
|
|
I maybe understand where the probated posters are coming from. I'm saying this as someone who engaged in the stuff they're criticizing. As interesting as it was to read and discuss those court opinions, it's clear to me that the court had plenty of leeway for how to interpret the law and how to act. In that light, the specific mechanics of the process become meaningless, when there are an unlimited number of excuses available to the powerful. Discussing those excuses as if they are regrettable but necessary parts of an impartial process is at best fruitless and at worst lends legitimacy to an illegitimate system. Doctor Butts posted:Using this logic you could say that explaining why the climate is changing is no different than saying it's a good thing. But if I explain that climate change is real, I am endorsing climate change's underlying assumptions. If I explain that this court ruling is a necessary evil, that its principles are sound even if the results are flawed, I am endorsing the justice system's underlying assumptions. I'm not saying it's impossible to discuss the process without being complicit. But it's a valid concern. An important theme in this thread is that we can passively reinforce biases without being aware of it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 17:06
|
|
|
Andenno posted:Discussing those excuses as if they are regrettable but necessary parts of an impartial process is at best fruitless and at worst lends legitimacy to an illegitimate system. Can you quote an example of any poster in this thread saying either of these things?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 17:20
|
|
|
Andenno posted:Sincere thanks for the information! Because by the time charges were brought, Cosby had already been forced by a Court Order to testify against himself on matters directly relating to those charges, which the Fifth Amendment absolutely prohibits. Even if the deposition testimony wasn’t used as evidence in the criminal trial, it was still prejudicial to Cosby because (1) he eventually had to settle the civil matter for $3 mil; and (2) the criminal prosecutor had improper access to Cosby’s version of what happened. Not a good outcome, but the law is pretty solid imo. The Kingfish fucked around with this message at 17:32 on Jul 1, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 17:27
|
|
|
As much as I think it's only natural to be frustrated in a situation like this, when some piece of poo poo like Cosby gets out on a "technicality," we should be more specific about where the outrage and anger is focused. The "system" is flawed, yes, but every time you hear about someone getting out on a technicality, it means the state hosed up. Prosecutors hosed up. We should be angry as Cosby for being a rapist, we should be angry at anyone that supports him for supporting a rapist, we should be angry that a rapist is not in prison, but most crucially: we should be angry that a rapist went free because the state and its agents failed to do their jobs legally and properly. That's on them, not just on "society" or indeed on Cosby himself. Not only is our justice system horrific in that it essentially allows for summary executions of people stopped for traffic infractions or misdemeanors (especially when they're Black!), not only is it horrific because the prison population is unreasonably huge and the conditions in prison are an insult to human dignity, not only is it horrific because it disproportionately punishes Black people and poor people for minor offenses, but it is horrific because it's really bad at imprisoning the sort of folks like Cosby who are serious, depraved predators with no remorse (but a lot of money!) and keeping them there, largely because many of the people involved are pretty crummy at their jobs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 17:33
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Because by the time charges were brought, Cosby had already been forced by a Court Order to testify against himself on matters directly relating to those charges, which the Fifth Amendment absolutely prohibits. Even if the deposition testimony wasn’t used as evidence in the criminal trial, it was still prejudicial to Cosby because (1) he eventually had to settle the civil matter for $3 mil; and (2) the criminal prosecutor had improper access to Cosby’s version of what happened. Then why not as the dissent says just suppress Cosby's testimony from the civil trial and have a new criminal trial? Surely it wouldn't be impossible to find some jurors who hadn't heard of the deposition or paid attention to the civil trial. IANAL but if that evidence isn't mentioned in a new trial at all and you find some jurors who have never heard about it, is it really still prejudicial? I just don't buy there's literally no way he can be tried again because of that deposition.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 17:33
|
|
|
Mr Luxury Yacht posted:Then why not as the dissent says just suppress Cosby's testimony from the civil trial and have a new criminal trial? Surely it wouldn't be impossible to find some jurors who hadn't heard of the deposition or paid attention to the civil trial. I only read the majority opinion (and I read it off my phone), but the fact that Cosby was forced to give deposition testimony almost certainly prejudiced him in the civil case that ultimately settled. It also prejudiced him because it gave the prosecution an improper insight into his version of events.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 17:55
|
|
|
Andenno posted:
If you are endorsing climate change's underlying assumptions then you are endorsing Physics, so that's kind of a weird comparison. I don't care for climate change either, but I don't think that Physics are unjust and need to be changed. I do think that this ruling is unjust and wish it could be changed, but simply explaining "this is why this happened in this system" emphatically is not a 1:1 endorsement of that system.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 18:15
|
|
|
prosecutors should not be empowered to give legal immunity for rape
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 18:37
|
|
|
How are u posted:If you are endorsing climate change's underlying assumptions then you are endorsing Physics, so that's kind of a weird comparison. I don't care for climate change either, but I don't think that Physics are unjust and need to be changed. My point was not that you can't discuss the system without endorsing it, but that the way you discuss it can be an unintentional endorsement. To address your point, the way these actions are justified in the court opinions is better compared to poetry than physics, since they are so subjective. I think it can lend them undue legitimacy to discuss the court's actions as if they are regrettable, but coherent and rational, instead of discussing them as a needlessly complex obfuscation. Muscle Tracer posted:Can you quote an example of any poster in this thread saying either of these things? I pointed at myself as a culprit. I think the distinction [E: in how we discuss the court rulings] is subtle but worth considering. It felt unnecessary to call out other posters. Andenno fucked around with this message at 18:50 on Jul 1, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 18:41
|
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:prosecutors should not be empowered to give legal immunity for rape And, in fairness, the law was clear that they're not, but the PA Supreme Court decided that if they act like they're empowered to give immunity then they actually are. Andenno quoted the part of a concurring and dissenting opinion that pointed this problem out: Andenno posted:
Andenno posted:I pointed at myself as a culprit. Yeah, I was surprised by that. Would you be willing to quote yourself where you suggest that this decision is a regrettable but necessary part of an impartial process or that the court ruling is a necessary evil? Because I read your posts, thought they were informative and reasonable, and am curious what I missed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 19:09
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:And, in fairness, the law was clear that they're not, but the PA Supreme Court decided that if they act like they're empowered to give immunity then they actually are. Andenno quoted the part of a concurring and dissenting opinion that pointed this problem out: The issue wasn’t that Castor told Cosby he wouldn’t prosecute, it’s that a civil court judge seemingly relied on the press release to force Cosby to give a deposition. Underlying all of this (and unstated as far as I can recall from my quick read) is that the civil court judge majorly hosed up in a way that cannot be undone because the parties settled without going to trial. E: and to the extent they acted improperly, Castor and the civil judge were both trying to gently caress Cosby over. The Kingfish fucked around with this message at 19:37 on Jul 1, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 19:34
|
|
|
Was there any prospect of convicting Cosby without his self-incriminating testimony?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 19:41
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:Was there any prospect of convicting Cosby without his self-incriminating testimony? Maybe? It obviously wasn't the only evidence but the testimony was pretty damning considering it's basically Cosby saying "I, William Henry Cosby drugged women including Andrea Constand with quaaludes before raping them and also I specifically procured the drugs for that purpose." It's immensely hosed up that they aren't even allowed to try again to put him in jail. Mr Luxury Yacht fucked around with this message at 19:53 on Jul 1, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 19:49
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:I only read the majority opinion (and I read it off my phone), but the fact that Cosby was forced to give deposition testimony almost certainly prejudiced him in the civil case that ultimately settled. It also prejudiced him because it gave the prosecution an improper insight into his version of events. I don't think that bit necessarily matters too much. My understanding is that the American legal system is very permissive about prosecutors knowing things they don't (or can't) introduce as evidence. The trickiest argument I've seen is that Castor's successor wouldn't have reopened the investigation without the civil testimony, which seems like a complicated hypothetical to work with. My assessment of the decision is largely mediated by lawyers who know more than I do about lawyering. My impression is that the legally correct decision would have been either "the original guy and possibly the civil judge hosed up but your fancypants expensive lawyers should have been able to both handle that and keep you informed of the possible consequences of your testimony, conviction stands" or "good point, your civil testimony may have altered the outcome, it's a mistrial and the state can try you again". Conveniently for Andenno's discussion of the legitimacy of court decisions, either one of these would also have a better chance of leading to the better moral outcome (Cosby punished for sexual assault), while representing a rule that if fairly applied wouldn't overly injure people less wealthy than Cosby. and as it happened, one of the judges on the panel did in fact argue for one of those alternative remedies Mr Luxury Yacht posted:Maybe? It obviously wasn't the only evidence but the testimony was pretty damning considering it's basically Cosby saying "I, William Henry Cosby drugged women including Andrea Constand with quaaludes before raping them and also I specifically procured the drugs for that purpose." Strictly speaking, i think they can appeal it to scotus, but that'll take a while. Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 20:18 on Jul 1, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 20:06
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:The issue wasn’t that Castor told Cosby he wouldn’t prosecute, it’s that a civil court judge seemingly relied on the press release to force Cosby to give a deposition. Did this happen? My reading was that Cosby followed the advice of his attorneys that he didn't have a fifth amendment right not to testify and it never came up before the civil court judge, but I'll admit I may have missed the civil court compelling testimony in my read.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 21:35
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Did this happen? My reading was that Cosby followed the advice of his attorneys that he didn't have a fifth amendment right not to testify and it never came up before the civil court judge, but I'll admit I may have missed the civil court compelling testimony in my read. It’s probably the most significant fact: quote:Cosby was forced to sit for four depositions. That he did not—and could not—choose to remain silent is apparent from the record. When Cosby attempted to decline to answer certain questions about Constand, Constand’s attorneys obtained a ruling from the civil trial judge forcing Cosby to answer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 21:50
|
|
|
Thanks! Obviously missed that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 21:56
|
|
|
Really really not a fan of this thread's / moderators policies of probating people for expressing frustration and anger. Yeah sometimes its misdirected but who the gently caress isn't angry about how trash the justice system is? The idea that people can just talk and have a non emotional conversation about sexual assaults and the justice system puzzles me. It's insane that someone who had 60 different women come forward and testify or make statements about what was done to them can get out on such a minor technicality. I think people would be less frustrated if - yes it was a technicality but he will be bad in jail soon based off this other poo poo - but we don't know that right now. silicone thrills fucked around with this message at 22:03 on Jul 1, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 22:00
|
|
|
Because those people then take it out on other posters and make up bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 22:08
|
|
|
RevolverDivider posted:Because those people then take it out on other posters and make up bullshit. There's been a ton of really hosed up poo poo in this thread that literally made me and others stop reading it previously because of the excuses folks were making for the system and lack of action being taken. I'd always would rather watch people scream mindlessly then "well ackshually"
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 22:18
|
|
|
If you would prefer to yell about things happening rather than learning and understanding why they happened I suggest you do so in a different subforum.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 22:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 21:31 |
|
|
Gotta do some introspection because, hey, you might not actually be a good guy. Mayhaps your rhetoric is misguided and actually perpetuates rape culture.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 22:20
|
|
