Bill Cosby found guilty

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
35,206
28,223
136
The lawyers didn't "find a procedural loophole". The prosecutors ROYALLY fucked up like fucking idiot children.

They shouldn't have passed the bar with that level of idiocy.
You might want to examine why your entire identity revolves around calling other people stupid in comically* hyperbolic terms. It's one of the primary reasons your opinions are worthless, the other being that when you are proven wrong, you don't own up to it, but instead pretend it didn't happen like a little bitch. For a guy who never liked Trump, you two certainly have that trait in common.

*When I say comically, that means we're laughing at you, not with you.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
35,966
27,644
136
Someone needs to ask Bruce Castor (DA at the time) why lawyers on both sides would have entered into an agreement not written down. That would be malpractice by all.

Something smells about that "oral agreement"
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,284
5,057
136
The original prosecutor ( the one who turned out to be the Orange Terror's defense counsel ) is the one who screwed up. That is the 'deal' people should be angry about. It should be nullified and this sack of crap returned to prison to finish out his time won by the second (decent) prosecutor.
That sets a precedent that will have absolutely horrible results. I'd rather see a hundred Cosby's go free than a single one abdicating his rights based on a lie.
 

Viper GTS

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
38,107
433
136
Someone needs to ask Bruce Castor (DA at the time) why lawyers on both sides would have entered into an agreement not written down. That would be malpractice by all.

Something smells about that "oral agreement"

Nothing to smell because there wasn't one. Castor removed Cosby's 5th amendment rights by removing the threat of prosecution. Cosby then had no choice but to testify in the civil trial (which was incriminating). New DA then decides to use that testimony against him and presto Cosby is in jail.

If you have the mental faculties to remove Cosby from this narrative and insert some random poor person this is an incredible injustice that if allowed to stand would effectively eliminate your 5th amendment rights.

I'm not a lawyer but I did read the decision (which you clearly have not if you're still confused by this). I never followed the original case all that closely so this was all new to me. I don't think Castor's decision was all that unreasonable (again, NAL). I'm sure Cosby was thrilled at the chance to spend a few million to make it go away, and Constand's team was probably thrilled at the payday given the contingent work they'd done. Constand herself had not done a particularly good job at making her case viable (continued interactions with Cosby, etc) so if she is smart she too was likely happy with the way things happened originally.

Castor was extremely clear about his intent and wrote an email to the new DA laying out why he felt their decision to prosecute was doomed to failure. He literally warned them not to do it unless they could make the case without anything that came from the civil trial.

The new DA is the primary source of the problem here, along with the lower courts that allowed this to happen in the first place.

Viper GTS
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,188
14,090
136
but if Crosby had immunity from being tried criminally from the previous DA, how did the next DA prosecute?
shouldnt Crosby have pulled out his get out of jail immunity agreement from the previous DA and save himself 3yrs in jail?

and why was that previous DA an idiot for making that deal?

He didn't really have immunity. Immunity is conferred by bilateral agreement, meaning it's offered in exchange for something. What the prior prosecutor did was simply promise not to prosecute, which technically is not enforceable. But Cosby was led to believe he had immunity, and because of said belief, he waived the 5th and incriminated himself in a civil deposition.

The prior prosecutor was an idiot because you don't just tell someone you aren't going to prosecute. You might say, we are not prosecuting at this time, but may change our minds if new evidence comes to light, or our investigation is ongoing, something like that. You don't make a promise not to prosecute in exchange for nothing.

In this case, the court ruled that Cosby was entitled to rely on this promise and since he did so to his detriment, the case is over.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pmv

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
12,975
7,892
136
I can't figure it out, but it sounds like the reversal might be legally legit.

One thing I don't understand is why Cosby would have said something so self-incriminating in defending the civil case. How would doing that have benefited him in that civil case? Surely if what he said was enough to get him convicted in a criminal case, it couldn't have helped him in the civil case he was trying to fight?

The bigger problem, it seems to me, is that statute-of-limitations that makes so many of the alleged offenses by Cosby unprosecutable. The UK has no such limitation for serious crimes, and from what I can see the global trend seems to be to remove such limits (they maybe make sense where justice systems are clearly ramshakle or corrupt - but if you think your justice system is a legit one, why not let it decide even old cases, if the crime is a serious one?)

[Edit] Though it probably wouldn't be possible or justifiable to retrospectively change that law for cases that have already 'expired', so it wouldn't make any difference to the Cosby case...but could at least avoid this sort of situation happening in future.
 
Last edited:

ondma

Platinum Member
Mar 18, 2018
2,718
1,278
136
I can't figure it out, but it sounds like the reversal might be legally legit.

One thing I don't understand is why Cosby would have said something so self-incriminating in defending the civil case. How would doing that have benefited him in that civil case? Surely if what he said was enough to get him convicted in a criminal case, it couldn't have helped him in the civil case he was trying to fight?

The bigger problem, it seems to me, is that statute-of-limitations that makes so many of the alleged offenses by Cosby unprosecutable. The UK has no such limitation for serious crimes, and from what I can see the global trend seems to be to remove such limits (they maybe make sense where justice systems are clearly ramshakle or corrupt - but if you think your justice system is a legit one, why not let it decide even old cases, if the crime is a serious one?)

[Edit] Though it probably wouldn't be possible or justifiable to retrospectively change that law for cases that have already 'expired', so it wouldn't make any difference to the Cosby case...but could at least avoid this sort of situation happening in future.
Yea, I did not understand that either. My assumption is that they subpoenaed him, and since he was promised no prosecution, he figured it was better to tell the truth than to risk perjury.
 

JEDI

Lifer
Sep 25, 2001
30,160
3,300
126
Yea, I did not understand that either. My assumption is that they subpoenaed him, and since he was promised no prosecution, he figured it was better to tell the truth than to risk perjury.
and let the person suing him win??
if so, then why not settle the case out of court if he's going to pay anyway?
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo
Jul 9, 2009
10,719
2,064
136
Nothing to smell because there wasn't one. Castor removed Cosby's 5th amendment rights by removing the threat of prosecution. Cosby then had no choice but to testify in the civil trial (which was incriminating). New DA then decides to use that testimony against him and presto Cosby is in jail.

If you have the mental faculties to remove Cosby from this narrative and insert some random poor person this is an incredible injustice that if allowed to stand would effectively eliminate your 5th amendment rights.

I'm not a lawyer but I did read the decision (which you clearly have not if you're still confused by this). I never followed the original case all that closely so this was all new to me. I don't think Castor's decision was all that unreasonable (again, NAL). I'm sure Cosby was thrilled at the chance to spend a few million to make it go away, and Constand's team was probably thrilled at the payday given the contingent work they'd done. Constand herself had not done a particularly good job at making her case viable (continued interactions with Cosby, etc) so if she is smart she too was likely happy with the way things happened originally.

Castor was extremely clear about his intent and wrote an email to the new DA laying out why he felt their decision to prosecute was doomed to failure. He literally warned them not to do it unless they could make the case without anything that came from the civil trial.

The new DA is the primary source of the problem here, along with the lower courts that allowed this to happen in the first place.

Viper GTS
This, and it's a good thing.
 

VRAMdemon

Diamond Member
Aug 16, 2012
6,447
7,616
136
Cosby is/was a serial sexual predator. Just surprised the court didn’t enforce the deal made with the previous DA. I hate that he’s out. But I can’t abide what the prosecutor did either. You don’t get to cut a deal like that and renege when you’ve gotten what you want. Overturning the conviction was the right decision. I see he is "proclaiming" his innocence - Hey Bill; You weren't released because your innocent. You got away with lighter punishment for your crimes because a prosecutor did something dishonest.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pmv

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
35,206
28,223
136
I can't figure it out, but it sounds like the reversal might be legally legit.

One thing I don't understand is why Cosby would have said something so self-incriminating in defending the civil case. How would doing that have benefited him in that civil case? Surely if what he said was enough to get him convicted in a criminal case, it couldn't have helped him in the civil case he was trying to fight?

The bigger problem, it seems to me, is that statute-of-limitations that makes so many of the alleged offenses by Cosby unprosecutable. The UK has no such limitation for serious crimes, and from what I can see the global trend seems to be to remove such limits (they maybe make sense where justice systems are clearly ramshakle or corrupt - but if you think your justice system is a legit one, why not let it decide even old cases, if the crime is a serious one?)

[Edit] Though it probably wouldn't be possible or justifiable to retrospectively change that law for cases that have already 'expired', so it wouldn't make any difference to the Cosby case...but could at least avoid this sort of situation happening in future.
I *think* if he was not offered the deal he could have refused to testify at all for the civil case. Then the civil case would have failed and any criminal case would have as well. By cutting the deal, Cosby was unable to use the 5th, and had to testify, where the lawyers must have been able to get him to admit a bunch of stuff.

That's how I understand it.
 

Sunburn74

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2009
5,025
2,593
136
Nothing to smell because there wasn't one. Castor removed Cosby's 5th amendment rights by removing the threat of prosecution. Cosby then had no choice but to testify in the civil trial (which was incriminating). New DA then decides to use that testimony against him and presto Cosby is in jail.

If you have the mental faculties to remove Cosby from this narrative and insert some random poor person this is an incredible injustice that if allowed to stand would effectively eliminate your 5th amendment rights.

I'm not a lawyer but I did read the decision (which you clearly have not if you're still confused by this). I never followed the original case all that closely so this was all new to me. I don't think Castor's decision was all that unreasonable (again, NAL). I'm sure Cosby was thrilled at the chance to spend a few million to make it go away, and Constand's team was probably thrilled at the payday given the contingent work they'd done. Constand herself had not done a particularly good job at making her case viable (continued interactions with Cosby, etc) so if she is smart she too was likely happy with the way things happened originally.

Castor was extremely clear about his intent and wrote an email to the new DA laying out why he felt their decision to prosecute was doomed to failure. He literally warned them not to do it unless they could make the case without anything that came from the civil trial.

The new DA is the primary source of the problem here, along with the lower courts that allowed this to happen in the first place.

Viper GTS
One hundred percent agree. Cosby is despicable but you can imagine the same sort of thing ring done with an innocent man by a malicious prosecutor.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,188
14,090
136
I can't figure it out, but it sounds like the reversal might be legally legit.

One thing I don't understand is why Cosby would have said something so self-incriminating in defending the civil case. How would doing that have benefited him in that civil case? Surely if what he said was enough to get him convicted in a criminal case, it couldn't have helped him in the civil case he was trying to fight?

That's an easy one. He screwed up and said self-incriminating things. There were several articles about that deposition.

The problem was he would never have answered the questions had the prosecutor not led him to believe he had immunity.

The bigger problem, it seems to me, is that statute-of-limitations that makes so many of the alleged offenses by Cosby unprosecutable. The UK has no such limitation for serious crimes, and from what I can see the global trend seems to be to remove such limits (they maybe make sense where justice systems are clearly ramshakle or corrupt - but if you think your justice system is a legit one, why not let it decide even old cases, if the crime is a serious one?)

[Edit] Though it probably wouldn't be possible or justifiable to retrospectively change that law for cases that have already 'expired', so it wouldn't make any difference to the Cosby case...but could at least avoid this sort of situation happening in future.

The purpose of statutes of limitations, both criminal and civil, is not to try cases based on stale recollections of witnesses and other stale evidence. Murder has no SoL. Other crimes generally do. Rape is usually 10 years, though CA did eliminate the rape SoL recently.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pmv

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,188
14,090
136
Someone needs to ask Bruce Castor (DA at the time) why lawyers on both sides would have entered into an agreement not written down. That would be malpractice by all.

Something smells about that "oral agreement"

It wasn't an agreement though. It was a promise. Two completely different things. A promise in the usual case is not enforceable because it is unilateral.

No one creates a writing to memorialize a simple unenforceable promise.

The problem is that promises can still get you into trouble. If I tell you I'm going to give you my car tomorrow, that's generally unenforceable. But if in reliance on my promise, you pre-pay for a years worth of parking, then if I renege you can sue at a minimum to recover your out of pocket because you detrimentally relied on my false promise.

That's pretty much what happened here except in a criminal context.
 
Nov 17, 2019
10,673
6,398
136
I've been expecting this, but I wasn't sure they make the effort ....

Bill Cosby prosecutors ask US Supreme Court to review case

By MARYCLAIRE DALE56 minutes ago
https://apnews.com/article/bill-cos...upreme-court-c99fd1eae8e81dee767fe8374a22b24e
PHILADELPHIA (AP) — Prosecutors asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the ruling that overturned Bill Cosby’s sexual assault conviction, arguing in a petition Monday that a dangerous precedent could be set if press releases are treated as immunity agreements.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

Commodus

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2004
9,206
6,799
136
I've been expecting this, but I wasn't sure they make the effort ....

Bill Cosby prosecutors ask US Supreme Court to review case

By MARYCLAIRE DALE56 minutes ago
https://apnews.com/article/bill-cos...upreme-court-c99fd1eae8e81dee767fe8374a22b24e
PHILADELPHIA (AP) — Prosecutors asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the ruling that overturned Bill Cosby’s sexual assault conviction, arguing in a petition Monday that a dangerous precedent could be set if press releases are treated as immunity agreements.

I sure hope the prosecutors get their way. Both because of the legal precedent concerns and because a predator like Cosby shouldn't be free on a technicality.
 

Viper1j

Diamond Member
Jul 31, 2018
4,168
3,645
136
I sure hope the prosecutors get their way. Both because of the legal precedent concerns and because a predator like Cosby shouldn't be free on a technicality.

Which is like saying: "I really hope they ID Jack The Ripper soon."

He's been dead for a 111 years.

There comes a point, when a person ceases to be a threat. I really don't think too many women are worried about being raped by an 84-year-old blind man.
 

Commodus

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2004
9,206
6,799
136
Which is like saying: "I really hope they ID Jack The Ripper soon."

He's been dead for a 111 years.

There comes a point, when a person ceases to be a threat. I really don't think too many women are worried about being raped by an 84-year-old blind man.

I should be clear: it's not that I think he's a threat, it's that this asshole shouldn't be free given everything he's done.
 
Nov 17, 2019
10,673
6,398
136
There is a precedent involved. If people think they can appeal a sentence because of what they say some one said, the floodgates are open.

Like the old saying, if it isn't on paper, it isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
 

Viper1j

Diamond Member
Jul 31, 2018
4,168
3,645
136
There is a precedent involved. If people think they can appeal a sentence because of what they say some one said, the floodgates are open.

Like the old saying, if it isn't on paper, it isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

Thing of it is, there are inherent protections in the differences between a criminal and civil case. There is no Fifth Amendment protection in a civil case, because your freedom is never at risk, only money and assets.

People are actually compelled to self incriminate in civil court.

They took testimony from a CIVIL case, and applied criminality to it. This is a case that should've never been tried in the first place. At least not with the evidence of anything obtained from civil testimony.