३० जून, २०२१

"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 case had a complicated history that began in 2005 when [Temple University employee Andrea] Constand first reported the alleged assault to then-Montgomery County District Attorney Bruce L. Castor Jr., who ultimately declined to file charges in this case. But Castor’s successors reopened the case and charged Cosby in 2015, just days before the 12-year statute of limitations expired and amid a barrage of new accusations from women across the country. At the time, Castor objected to the new prosecution, saying he’d struck a deal with Cosby and his lawyers not to prosecute him for Constand’s assault if Cosby agreed to sit for a deposition in a civil case she had filed against him..... He was charged in late 2015, when a prosecutor armed with newly unsealed evidence — Cosby’s damaging deposition from her lawsuit — arrested him days before the 12-year statute of limitations expired."

The Philadelphia Inquirer reports.

द्वारा पोस्ट केलेले Ann Althouse येथे १२:१५ PM
Tags: , ,

४ टिप्पण्या:

Ann Althouse म्हणाले...

Irving writes:

"While I do not condone Bill Cosby’ alleged crimes, I sure hope he sues both the State of Pennsylvania and Castor’s successors for malicious prosecution and false imprisonment. Without question, this was Cancel Culture writ large."

३०/६/२१, ५:१६ PM
Ann Althouse म्हणाले...

Ken writes:

The linked article links to the 79 page majority opinion but not to the dissents. Seems like one big issue was whether the prior prosecutor actually made such a promise not to prosecute. The trial court investigated and found he had not.

I just skimmed, but one thing I would like to know is whether the alleged victim, who was pressing for Cosby's testimony in her civil case (where he was ordered to testify, apparently), had a role in the decision.

50 years ago, the head of my secondary school, now deceased, suddenly resigned and left the school. A quarter century later he was prosecuted for having abused a local child (not a student). It was dropped when a non-prosecution agreement that resulted in his resignation, was revealed. There, the parents were part of the agreement, not wanting to put their child through the legal process.

३०/६/२१, ७:२२ PM
Ann Althouse म्हणाले...

Tim writes:

While I make no judgement on Bill Cosby's guilt or innocence, it always bothered me that he waived his 5th Amendment protections and gave a deposition based on a written agreement that it would specifically not be used against him in a criminal case. I really don't see how the PSC could have made any other decision. If you cannot trust the government to keep it's word past the tenure of current office holders, then every lawyer in the country would tell every client they have to never take a deal, always plead the 5th. I have noticed a lot of advice from lawyers lately to NOT talk to police at all, in any manner, without a lawyer present and recording.

३०/६/२१, ७:४२ PM
Ann Althouse म्हणाले...

Richard writes:

The decision was a remarkable exercise in fine distinctions. The majority accepted the trial court’s factual findings (as it was required to do) that there was no agreement between prosecutor and defendant on any subject, and specifically none that conditioned the ‘no prosecution’ decision on any act by the defendant. But the lower court’s findings showed that there was a unilateral promise not to prosecute combined with a flat statement by the district attorney that there would be no prosecution of Cosby for any sexual assault crime involving the then-only complainant. The district attorney’s intent was to remove any basis for a Fifth Amendment objection by Cosby from testifying at a civil deposition. Invoking the privilege against self-incrimination requires some basis to say the defendant may be open to prosecution on the same subject matter, and the district attorney was clear that his unilateral actions were intended to destroy the basis for any such argument by Cosby.

The court also found that Cosby reasonably relied on the prosecutor’s unilateral promise and commitment in not raising a Fifth Amendment objection to testifying in the complainant’s civil case and ultimately paying a substantial settlement amount to her.

Some 12 years later the new district attorney ( who had been the prior district attorney’s first deputy when the unilateral promise was made) decided to arrest Cosby in substantial part based on his deposition testimony that the court found was given in reasonable reliance on the prior district attorney’s promise of no prosecution.

So, no agreement with the defendant — but unilateral promise plus reasonable reliance got the court to the same place: the prosecution was fundamentally unfair and so violated defendant’s due process rights.

Can’t say I am completely convinced by the court’s reasoning. But it is so rare to see an appellate court reverse a conviction because the prosecution was fundamentally unfair that I wanted to stand up and cheer.

३०/६/२१, ८:५७ PM

टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा

याची सदस्यत्व घ्या: टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)