Bill Cosby ... There is smoke.

[The Sisko]

Now why did y’all have to send me back to Pill Cosby meme land? I thought I was done with it, but nah.

[China]

Bill Cosby appeal will test scope of #MeToo prosecutions

 

In a stunning decision that could test the legal framework of #MeToo cases, Pennsylvania's highest court will review the trial decision to let five other accusers testify at Bill Cosby's sexual assault trial in 2018, which ended with the longtime TV star's conviction.

 

Cosby, 82, has been imprisoned in suburban Philadelphia for nearly two years after a jury convicted him of drugging and sexually assaulting a woman at his home in 2004. He's serving a three- to 10-year sentence.

 

The Supreme Court has agreed to review two aspects of the case, including the judge's decision to let prosecutors call the other accusers to testify about long-ago encounters with the actor and comedian. Cosby’s lawyers have long complained the testimony is remote and unreliable.

 

The court will also consider, as it weighs the scope of the evidence allowed, whether the jury should have heard Cosby's own deposition testimony about getting quaaludes to give women in the past.

 

Secondly, the court will examine Cosby's argument that he had an agreement with a former prosecutor that he would never be charged in the case. Cosby has said he relied on the alleged promise before agreeing to give the deposition in trial accuser Andrea Constand's lawsuit.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[China]

Legal advocates line up as court prepares to review Bill Cosby's 2018 sex assault conviction

 

Legal advocates are lining up on both sides of actor Bill Cosby’s appeal as the Pennsylvania Supreme Court prepares to review his 2018 sex assault conviction.

 

Cosby was the first celebrity to go on trial in the #MeToo era, and his appeal could resolve lingering questions about how the cases should be tried. For starters, the high court will try to clarify when other accusers can testify against a defendant — and when the additional testimony amounts to character assassination.

 

Public defenders in Philadelphia, in a friend-of-the-court brief filed in Cosby’s appeal, noted that courts have given conflicting guidance on the issue.

 

“Courts repeatedly fail to analyze how uncharged misconduct is relevant to prove, for example, intent or identity,” the Defender Association of Philadelphia wrote in the amicus brief, one of several filed in the case this past month.

 

They say the testimony should only be allowed if it’s linked to a single crime scheme, to avoid “the genuine risk that defendants will be convicted for who they are, or for what they may or may not have done before.”

 

Click on the link for the full article

 

 

[Kosher Ham]

Slippery slope. 

[LadySkinsFan]

The other women's testimony contributed information about his modus operadi. He's a convicted rapist.

[PleaseBlitz]

It's sort of a tricky area.  The federal rules of evidence don't let you consider evidence about the victim's past sexual behavior (the She's a Slut and Therefore Wanted It Rule) but does let you enter evidence that the defendant has previously sexually assaulted someone (because rapists don't just do it once). 

[PleaseBlitz]

Bill Cosby is being released. 

https://www.inquirer.com/news/bill-cosby-conviction-overturned-appeal-andrea-constand-20210630.html

 

Quote

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has overturned Bill Cosby’s 2019 sexual assault conviction, ruling that a “non-prosecution agreement” with a previous prosecutor should have prevented him from being charged in the case.

The 83-year-old comedian has served more than two years of a three-to-10 year sentence in a state prison in Montgomery County, after his conviction on charges he drugged and molested Temple University employee Andrea Constand in 2004.

He was recently denied parole, in part, over his refusal to admit guilt or acknowledge any remorse for crimes he maintains he did not commit.

 

[spjunkies]

Will a judge who screwed up this much face any punishment? Sucks to see him get off.

[tshile]

I agree with that. If you strike a deal with the government, then they need to honor that deal. 
 

if they hadn’t used his deposition in trial, I’d be more inclined to have a different opinion, but that move seals it for me. 
 

otherwise what good is a deal if the government just throws it in the trash later?

 

it’s crappy because it appears he did this, numerous times, and now won’t be held accountable (I guess?) but you can’t have a system that makes deals then goes back on them. You just can’t. At least not like that. 

[PokerPacker]

4 minutes ago, spjunkies said:

Will a judge who screwed up this much face any punishment? Sucks to see him get off.

Are we not doing "phrasing" anymore?

[tshile]

@PleaseBlitz

am I right to assume that the original prosecutors decision probably was made in consultation with the victim?

 

Ie: the prosecutor felt there wasn’t a strong chance at criminal conviction, but civil is way different, and at least for her she had a better chance of seeing some form of justice, and that she was on board with it at the time?

[gbear]

Well, I think got off is somewhat debatable.  He did at least serve 2 years of a 3 to 10 conviction.  It is like he got off on parole.  Sad, but as said above, we just can't go back on our word and still have a functioning system.

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

 

[Dan T.]

Bill Cosby's face

 

Everything Bagel

 

         

[Dan T.]

The prosecutor who gave Bill Cosby the "no prosecution" deal that screwed everything up?  Bruce Castor,  the bumbling attorney in Trump's impeachment defense.

 

 

[skinsmarydu]

I thought his name was eerily familiar...and he forgot which side he was on at first. 

[bearrock]

27 minutes ago, tshile said:

@PleaseBlitz

am I right to assume that the original prosecutors decision probably was made in consultation with the victim?

 

Ie: the prosecutor felt there wasn’t a strong chance at criminal conviction, but civil is way different, and at least for her she had a better chance of seeing some form of justice, and that she was on board with it at the time?

 

I'm pretty sure that justification was added by Castor during the reelection campaign once it became a campaign issue over a decade later.  At the time, the non prosecution deal was not announced (it wasn't even a written agreement).  I haven't seen anything to suggest that the victim was aware of the no prosecution deal, much less approved it, but I may just not have seen it.

 

 

[PleaseBlitz]

32 minutes ago, tshile said:

@PleaseBlitz

am I right to assume that the original prosecutors decision probably was made in consultation with the victim?

 

Ie: the prosecutor felt there wasn’t a strong chance at criminal conviction, but civil is way different, and at least for her she had a better chance of seeing some form of justice, and that she was on board with it at the time?

 

Possible but doubtful.  No reason the victims couldn't go ahead with a civil suit separate from the criminal prosecution.  

 

And prosecutors are under no obligation in most jurisdictions to consult with the victims about anything.  

[tshile]

5 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Possible but doubtful.  No reason the victims couldn't go ahead with a civil suit separate from the criminal prosecution.  

 

And prosecutors are under no obligation in most jurisdictions to consult with the victims about anything.  

Interesting. 
 

i guess I thought that since the deal involved the civil suite, something has has zero control/say over, that it would have needed to involve the victim at some point. 
 

seems weird to me a prosecutor can strike a deal involving a civil suite they have nothing do with all on their own… 

[bearrock]

5 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

And prosecutors are under no obligation in most jurisdictions to consult with the victims about anything.  

 

This actually brings up an interesting issue.  By mid 2000s, PA had already passed the victims bill of rights bill, which mandates notification to victims of certain crimes of the disposition or agreements regarding the charge.  The decision to not bring charges was widely made public, but the agreement to not prosecute was not.  Arguably, I think the victim could allege that Castor violated the victim's rights act in this situation.

1 minute ago, tshile said:

Interesting. 
 

i guess I thought that since the deal involved the civil suite, something has has zero control/say over, that it would have needed to involve the victim at some point. 
 

seems weird to me a prosecutor can strike a deal involving a civil suite they have nothing do with all on their own… 

 

The prosecutor isn't striking a deal regarding the civil case, it's just that the decision to not criminally prosecute has repercussions in a civil case.  And with all 50 states now having victim's rights act, prosecutors would have to offer the victim an opportunity to provide their input in cases like this (ultimately the prosecutor's discretion though).

[The Sisko]

Ahhh, the so-called “justice” system strikes again.🙄

[tshile]

13 minutes ago, bearrock said:

The prosecutor isn't striking a deal regarding the civil case, it's just that the decision to not criminally prosecute has repercussions in a civil case. 

It just doesn’t make sense to me

Quote

At the time, Castor said he was not confident her allegations would hold up to scrutiny in a criminal court. But he maintained he struck the non-prosecution deal with Cosby to compel him to testify in a civil suit that Constand had separately filed against him, hoping that at least she could find justice in civil court.

without the victim being involved it sounds like prosecutors can just randomly decide we’re not prosecuting this because maybe there could be a civil case and if they testify in that we won’t prosecute 

 

I get it’s the prosecutors discretion I just don’t understand how that specific justification works. What if she didn’t file? Or dropped it? Or if his cooperation wasn’t necessary? 
 

Just doesn’t make sense to me. 

[bearrock]

1 minute ago, tshile said:

It just doesn’t make sense to me

without the victim being involved it sounds like prosecutors can just randomly decide we’re not prosecuting this because maybe there could be a civil case and if they testify in that we won’t prosecute 

 

I get it’s the prosecutors discretion I just don’t understand how that specific justification works. What if she didn’t file? Or dropped it? Or if his cooperation wasn’t necessary? 
 

Just doesn’t make sense to me. 

 

Prosecutor's discretion to not charge is pretty absolute (I think there's a state or two that allows private prosecution, but pretty rare practice).  I think the whole justification by Castor is kind of bunk and he just came up with it cause it became a campaign issue.

[Xameil]

1 hour ago, PokerPacker said:

Are we not doing "phrasing" anymore?

 

[China]