Bill Cosby freed from prison after sexual assault conviction overturned by court

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Bill Cosby has returned home from prison after his sexual assault conviction was overturned by Pennsylvania’s highest court.

The court said on Wednesday that it found an agreement with a previous prosecutor prevented him from being charged in the case.

The 83-year-old comedian, who was once beloved as “America’s Dad”, was convicted in 2018 of drugging and molesting Andrea Constand, a Temple University employee at his suburban estate.

He has spent more than two years of a three-to-10-year sentence at a state prison near Philadelphia.

Crosby was charged in late 2015 when a prosecutor with new evidence arrested him days before the 12-year statute of limitations expired.

The trial judge initially allowed just one other accuser to testify at Cosby’s trial.

But after the jury deadlocked, he allowed five other accusers to testify at a second trial about their experiences with Cosby in the 1980s.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court said that testimony tainted the trial. But the law on prior bad act testimony varies by state.

Prosecutors have not said if they will appeal or seek to try Cosby for a third time.

Cosby's lawyer Jennifer Bonjean, said: "My reaction to the ruling is I am thrilled and I am pleased that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court saw what we knew all along, which was that Mr Cosby never should have been prosecuted for this for this case.

"He relied on representations of a prior district attorney and he relied on them to his detriment. And then the current district attorney not only reneged on that promise, but then used his own words against him.

"It is was fundamentally unfair. It was driven by politics. And that's how we got here today.

"And we're quite pleased that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court seems impervious to what is going on on the outside world and all of that pressure that was placed on the criminal justice system from hashtag movements and other and other media, not just not just social media, but mainstream media, frankly."

In May, Cosby was denied paroled after refusing to participate in sex offender programs.

He has said he would resist treatment programs and refuse to acknowledge wrongdoing even if it means serving the full 10-year sentence.

This is the first year he was eligible for parole.

Cosby's spokesperson Andrew Wyatt called the parole board decision “appalling.”

Cosby had invited Constand, a former professional basketball player who worked at his alma mater, to his estate in Pennsylvania the night she said he drugged and sexually assaulted her. Constand went to police a year later.

His other accusers knew the comedian through the entertainment industry and did not go to police.

Link.

[Ralin]

"It is was fundamentally unfair. It was driven by politics. And that's how we got here today.

Yeah. It was briefly politically in vogue to pretend rapists were going to start being punished.

[Crazedwraith]

so... prosecutors fucked up badly by making a deal and not sticking to it?

[Solauren]

so... prosecutors fucked up badly by making a deal and not sticking to it?

Essentially.

The problem is more accurately: Original prosecutor made a deal, new prosecutor decided to ignore it.
Quite frankly, that's the sort of blunder that can (and should) cost people their jobs.
It's the kind of blunder that can make it difficult for other prosecutors to get deals that could save the tax payers money, as well as get them witnesses against worse criminals.

However, it's kind of a non-point unless Cosby decides to sue.

Why?

He's served 2 years of the 3 minimum already. This has probably affected his health.
His reputation has been destroyed.

Yes, I believe he committed the crime he was charged with, and I believe most (if not all) of the people that have come forward had simliar happen to them, and that he should be punished for what he did. (In a group as large as the one that came forward against Cosby, there is always a chance of one of them being a fraud).

But, it was done the wrong way. It's was done in a way that may actually reverse the progress caused by the '#MeToo' movement, because it will shake everyone's faith in the justice system.

If that's the case, despite the jail time, Cosby won.

[bilateralrope]

Also the original prosecutor, the one who made the deal, was the same person who defended Trump during his second impeachment. The one who opened with so much rambling that people questioned his competence.

Which makes me question the motives Castor gave for making the deal.

[Lost Soal]

so... prosecutors fucked up badly by making a deal and not sticking to it?

Essentially.

The problem is more accurately: Original prosecutor made a deal, new prosecutor decided to ignore it.
Quite frankly, that's the sort of blunder that can (and should) cost people their jobs.
It's the kind of blunder that can make it difficult for other prosecutors to get deals that could save the tax payers money, as well as get them witnesses against worse criminals.

It's not that clear cut, the evidence of a deal is the press release of the first DA saying he wasn't going to prosecute Cosby. There is no official signed agreement in any file or anyone's possession, there is no legally binding agreement to be ignored, merely Prosecutorial Discretion

[TimothyC]

It's not that clear cut, the evidence of a deal is the press release of the first DA saying he wasn't going to prosecute Cosby. There is no official signed agreement in any file or anyone's possession, there is no legally binding agreement to be ignored, merely Prosecutorial Discretion

On page 66 of the opinion, it notes that Cosby attempted to not answer some of the questions in the civil trial depositions, and the civil trial judge ordered Cosby to answer them. For me, that becomes the critical point, because 5th amendment protections can only go away if there is no criminal jeopardy attached. Therefore, it is not only that Cosby acted like there was an agreement to not charge, it is that the court system acted like there was an agreement to not charge.

What the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is saying in this opinion is that the lower courts got this wrong when the lower courts found that Cosby retained his 5th amendment protections but failed to invoke them.

To be clear, I think Cosby is guilty of what would not be defined as rape in his actions over decades. I also think that if prosecutors are allowed to run rough-shod over the rules, that's bad for the system. Yes, Cosby should have gotten a court-ordered agreement on the decision not to prosecute, but because the civil trial court acted as though there was that agreement, the criminal trial court can't act like there wasn't.

[Solauren]

It's not that clear cut, the evidence of a deal is the press release of the first DA saying he wasn't going to prosecute Cosby. There is no official signed agreement in any file or anyone's possession, there is no legally binding agreement to be ignored, merely Prosecutorial Discretion

The problem with that is, in a lot of government institutions, those decisions are treated as binding to the institution going forward, unless substantial new information comes forward.

For example - If my bosses say 'Solauren, as the debtor does not have any other places of residence, we are not seizing their house to cover their tax debt', that's it. Full Stop.

Unless we can identify another residential property they own, or a residential property under their spouses name, that property is not being seized.

Non-residential property and assets would still be allowable, but not their residence. And going forward, that decision would stand so long as the same political party stays in power, and they don't make any major policy changes.


So, when the Prosecutor said 'Yeah, we're not going after Cosby', unless Cosby was stupid enough to commit another rape, (which would not have been covered by that statement, and justifies ignoring it), that was supposed to be it.

The fact everyone else treated it that way indicates they agreed.

[Ralin]

To be clear, I think Cosby is guilty of what would not be defined as rape in his actions over decades. I also think that if prosecutors are allowed to run rough-shod over the rules, that's bad for the system.

Not nearly as bad as judges deliberately letting rapists go free.

the criminal trial court can't act like there wasn't.

Yeah they can. They frequently do so. Courts routinely let cops lie to people to get confessions. They let prosecutors strongarm defendants into plea bargaining with the thread of decades long sentences. Hell, they let cops murder and brutalize people every day of the week. The only thing different here is how much money the defendant had to pay for lawyers and the fact that all he did was rape some people and the courts don't really consider that a big deal.

The judge should have told Cosby to go to hell. This is why 'rule of law' is such a toxic concept.

[Solauren]

Rule of Law isn't a toxic concept.

It's the execution of it that's toxic.

[Batman]

Rule of law 'because it's the law' IS a toxic concept when the laws in question are unfair and clearly designed to benefit the few at the cost of the many.
The execution comes in ON TOP of that when the laws that SHOULD be applied equally to everybody are generally ignored for rich white people but are brought down with the full force of every sentence, word, punctuation mark, letter, misspelling, and 'can be interpreted to mean that if you look at it in a really bad light while seriously stoned ' interpretation of the law

[loomer]

When you have a system in which the laws are arbitrarily unevenly and inequitably enforced, you actually don't have the rule of law at all. That's not a no true scotsman either - it's more or less the basic principle of the rule of law as an entire concept. Beyond that, the rule of law is neither innately toxic or positive in a society, just like the law itself - it is essentially content neutral and can be either horrific or beautiful in operation.

It's part of why appeals to 'the rule of law' by most political commentators are actually complete nonsense and bullshit.

[Elfdart]

Does this mean they're bringing back those Jell-O Pudding Pops?



Seriously though, just looking at him makes me think he'll be joining Donald Rumsfeld in hell soon enough.

[Coop D'etat]

Rule of law 'because it's the law' IS a toxic concept when the laws in question are unfair and clearly designed to benefit the few at the cost of the many.
The execution comes in ON TOP of that when the laws that SHOULD be applied equally to everybody are generally ignored for rich white people but are brought down with the full force of every sentence, word, punctuation mark, letter, misspelling, and 'can be interpreted to mean that if you look at it in a really bad light while seriously stoned ' interpretation of the law

If it doesn't apply to the elite it sure as fuck won't apply to the underclass. State power always falls hardest on the undesirables.

That applies equally or even more so in non-liberal and non-capitalist societies.

[TimothyC]

Not nearly as bad as judges deliberately letting rapists go free.

Are you talking in a more general sense, or in the specific sense as it relates to this case? Are there crimes that are so terrible that it doesn't matter if civil rights are violated in the pursuit of punishing the perpetrators?

the criminal trial court can't act like there wasn't.

Yeah they can. They frequently do so. Courts routinely let cops lie to people to get confessions. They let prosecutors strongarm defendants into plea bargaining with the thread of decades long sentences. Hell, they let cops murder and brutalize people every day of the week. The only thing different here is how much money the defendant had to pay for lawyers and the fact that all he did was rape some people and the courts don't really consider that a big deal.

The judge should have told Cosby to go to hell. This is why 'rule of law' is such a toxic concept.

Let's be clear here. The prosecutor said that they were not going to charge Cosby. Based on that, the civil trial went forward. In that civil trial, if there had been any criminal jeopardy still attached, Cosby should have been allowed to take the fifth, and avoid any self-incriminating testimony. He was not. The judge in the civil trial said he had to answer the questions, and thus the testimony that was used in his criminal trial was made. Fundamentally, what happened to Cosby here is the same principle as requiring people to testify as to crimes they have been pardoned for.

I'm reminded of a line from A Man for All Seasons



We need to be more protective of people's civil rights, not less.