Another twitter bully hurling vile insults at the Huxtables. For shame.

1 hour ago, Phillyterp85 said:

No.   If a DA makes a deal providing immunity in exchange for testimony, the new DA can't then bring charges based on the testimony that was provided.   As much as it sucks to see a rapist go free, it was absolutely the right decision by the PASC. 

Then the DA who tried the case should not have presented his Deposition Testimony as evidence and the Trial Judge should not have permitted it to be admitted. 

But was he really given Immunity? What evidence is the PASC relying on to say there was a deal?

1 hour ago, sameaglesfan said:

Yes - what a strange unpredictable thing it would be for agreements in our justice system to be binding...

Yes, what evidence is there of an agreement? 

Wink nod verbal agreements aren't legally binding. I'm sure it's documented somewhere for the SC to have overturned the conviction.

3 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Wink nod verbal agreements aren't legally binding. I'm sure it's documented somewhere for the SC to have overturned the conviction.

Yeah, I'd like to read the Opinion to find the answer to that one. Surprised it hasn't posted in here. 

 

https://www.pacourts.us/Storage/media/pdfs/20210630/163038-june302021opinionwecht.pdf

 

I guess the Court relied on the totality of circumstances in making his decision rather than receiving documented proof on paper. 

https://www.pacourts.us/Storage/media/pdfs/20210630/163038-june302021opinionwecht.pdf

District Attorney Castor thoroughly investigated Constand’s claim. In evaluating the likelihood of a successful prosecution of Cosby, the district attorney foresaw difficulties with Constand’s credibility as a witness based, in part, upon her decision not to file a complaint promptly. D.A. Castor further determined that a prosecution would be frustrated because there was no corroborating forensic evidence and because testimony from other potential claimants against Cosby likely was inadmissible under governing laws of evidence. The collective weight of these considerations led D.A. Castor to conclude that, unless Cosby confessed, "there was insufficient credible and admissible [J-100-2020] - 2 evidence upon which any charge against Mr. Cosby related to the Constand incident could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.”1 Seeking "some measure of justice” for Constand, D.A. Castor decided that the Commonwealth would decline to prosecute Cosby for the incident involving Constand, thereby allowing Cosby to be forced to testify in a subsequent civil action, under penalty of perjury, without the benefit of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. 2 Unable to invoke any right not to testify in the civil proceedings, Cosby relied upon the district attorney’s declination and proceeded to provide four sworn depositions. During those depositions, Cosby made several incriminating statements. D.A. Castor’s successors did not feel bound by his decision, and decided to prosecute Cosby notwithstanding that prior undertaking. The fruits of Cosby’s reliance upon D.A. Castor’s decisionCosby’s sworn inculpatory testimonywere then used by D.A. Castor’s successors against Cosby at Cosby’s criminal trial. We granted allowance of appeal to determine whether D.A. Castor’s decision not to prosecute Cosby in exchange for his testimony must be enforced against the Commonwealth. 3

Hmm so not really immunity then. More so settling for a proceeding in civil court where the legal standard is lowered from reasonable doubt to a preponderance of evidence and where he can't plead the 5th (didn't know that was possible.) But then the successor DA reversing course and using evidence from said civil case against him in a new criminal case. 

That is what happened in this case. There has been considerable debate over the legal significance of District Attorney Castor’s publicly announced decision not to prosecute Cosby in 2005. Before the trial court, the Superior Court, and now this Court, the parties have vigorously disputed whether D.A. Castor and Cosby reached a binding agreement, whether D.A. Castor extended an enforceable promise, or whether any act of legal significance occurred at all. There is testimony in the record that could support any of these conclusions. The trial court—the entity charged with sorting through those facts—found that D.A. Castor made no agreement or overt promise. Much of that debate, and the attendant factual conclusions, were based upon the apparent absence of a formal agreement and former D.A. Castor’s various efforts to defend and explain his actions ten years after the fact. As a reviewing court, we accept the trial court’s conclusion that the district attorney’s decision was merely an exercise of his charging discretion.24 As we assess whether that decision, and the surrounding circumstances, implicated Cosby’s due process rights, former D.A. Castor’s post-hoc attempts to explain or characterize his actions are largely immaterial. The answer to our query lies instead in the objectively indisputable evidence of record demonstrating D.A. Castor’s patent intent to induce Cosby’s reliance upon the non-prosecution decision....

 

The trial court alternatively suggested that Cosby’s belief that he would never be prosecuted, thus stripping him of his Fifth Amendment rights, based upon little more than a press release, was unreasonable because neither Cosby nor his attorneys demanded that the terms of any offers or assurances by D.A. Castor be reduced to writing. This reasoning is unpersuasive. Neither the trial court, nor the Commonwealth for that matter, cites any legal principle that requires a prosecutor’s assurances to be memorialized in writing in order to warrant reasonable reliance. We decline to construe as unreasonable the failure to do that which the law does not require.

7 minutes ago, jsdarkstar said:

That is what happened in this case. There has been considerable debate over the legal significance of District Attorney Castor’s publicly announced decision not to prosecute Cosby in 2005. Before the trial court, the Superior Court, and now this Court, the parties have vigorously disputed whether D.A. Castor and Cosby reached a binding agreement, whether D.A. Castor extended an enforceable promise, or whether any act of legal significance occurred at all. There is testimony in the record that could support any of these conclusions. The trial court—the entity charged with sorting through those facts—found that D.A. Castor made no agreement or overt promise. Much of that debate, and the attendant factual conclusions, were based upon the apparent absence of a formal agreement and former D.A. Castor’s various efforts to defend and explain his actions ten years after the fact. As a reviewing court, we accept the trial court’s conclusion that the district attorney’s decision was merely an exercise of his charging discretion.24 As we assess whether that decision, and the surrounding circumstances, implicated Cosby’s due process rights, former D.A. Castor’s post-hoc attempts to explain or characterize his actions are largely immaterial. The answer to our query lies instead in the objectively indisputable evidence of record demonstrating D.A. Castor’s patent intent to induce Cosby’s reliance upon the non-prosecution decision....

 

The trial court alternatively suggested that Cosby’s belief that he would never be prosecuted, thus stripping him of his Fifth Amendment rights, based upon little more than a press release, was unreasonable because neither Cosby nor his attorneys demanded that the terms of any offers or assurances by D.A. Castor be reduced to writing. This reasoning is unpersuasive. Neither the trial court, nor the Commonwealth for that matter, cites any legal principle that requires a prosecutor’s assurances to be memorialized in writing in order to warrant reasonable reliance. We decline to construe as unreasonable the failure to do that which the law does not require.

Not sure I follow the last bit. The court is saying the law doesn't require formal documentation of an agreement not to prosecute? That a defendant can merely infer this and then proceed to incriminate himself via testimony in a civil case thus granting him defacto immunity from any future criminal proceedings? Seems whack, yo.

1 hour ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Or it could just be due to abject incompetence. I know we hold many professions like doctors and lawyers in high regard, but someone has to graduate in the bottom of their class in every field. There's always gonna be that guy that barely squeaks by when he should've otherwise failed out. Some of them inevitably end up in positions of power or influence and this can be the result. There are idiots in every position, just because someone is a DA, doesn't mean they're automatically intelligent.

True. However, high profile cases are usually not given to morons. Usually.

7 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Not sure I follow the last bit. The court is saying the law doesn't require formal documentation of an agreement not to prosecute? That a defendant can merely infer this and then proceed to incriminate himself via testimony in a civil case thus granting him defacto immunity from any future criminal proceedings? Seems whack, yo.

Yep. I guess the Court is saying that Castor's Decision made publicly caused Cosby to Rely on that decision. Making it binding. His reliance on the decision not to prosecute removes his ability to invoke the 5th Amendment. He then was forced to testify at deposition where he made several incriminating statements based on that reliance. Then that Depo was admitted as evidence against him at Trial. Had that Depo not been admitted as evidence the decision may have been different.

So now, if there is a decision not to charge, and the defendant gives Depo testimony, it can not be used against him in future Criminal Trials. 

46 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

Aunt Viv weighed in:

 

no doubt 70yardretard will have something to say to her. 

6 minutes ago, jsdarkstar said:

Yep. I guess the Court is saying that Castor's Decision made publicly caused Cosby to Rely on that decision. Making it binding. His reliance on the decision not to prosecute removes his ability to invoke the 5th Amendment. He then was forced to testify at deposition where he made several incriminating statements based on that reliance. Then that Depo was admitted as evidence against him at Trial. Had that Depo not been admitted as evidence the decision may have been different.

So now, if there is a decision not to charge, and the defendant gives Depo testimony, it can not be used against him in future Criminal Trials. 

Yeah this seems like the crux of the issue. Maybe more of a failure of the trial court judge than the DA's negligence in publicly stating no criminal charges would be brought. Either way, it should be required that such a reliance is formalized. Inferences are too subjective.

BLM !!!!

defund the prisons!!!!!

 

1 minute ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Yeah this seems like the crux of the issue. Maybe more of a failure of the judge than the DA's negligence in publicly stating no criminal charges would be brought. Either way, it should be required that such a reliance is formalized. Inferences are too subjective.

Agreed. 

3 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Yeah this seems like the crux of the issue. Maybe more of a failure of the trial court judge than the DA's negligence in publicly stating no criminal charges would be brought. Either way, it should be required that such a reliance is formalized. Inferences are too subjective.

The mistake was by the prosecutor for using the deposition testimony at all. Once that evidence was used, you were subject to this potential outcome; regardless of what the trial judge ruled, you were subject to overturn on appeal. Given the volume of other evidence, this was just dumb by the prosecutor. 

And no, a contract or agreement doesn't have to be reduced to writing. If it provides value to both sides (which this did) and was reasonably relied upon by the parties (which Cosby argues), then that is legally binding.

Just now, vikas83 said:

The mistake was by the prosecutor for using the deposition testimony at all. Once that evidence was used, you were subject to this potential outcome; regardless of what the trial judge ruled, you were subject to overturn on appeal. Given the volume of other evidence, this was just dumb by the prosecutor. 

 

that's how i see it as well. epic fail that came back to bite them. 

3 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

The mistake was by the prosecutor for using the deposition testimony at all. Once that evidence was used, you were subject to this potential outcome; regardless of what the trial judge ruled, you were subject to overturn on appeal. Given the volume of other evidence, this was just dumb by the prosecutor. 

And no, a contract or agreement doesn't have to be reduced to writing. If it provides value to both sides (which this did) and was reasonably relied upon by the parties (which Cosby argues), then that is legally binding.

Yeah, both are clearly at fault. But if the trial court judge ruled it as inadmissible, the chances for this outcome are drastically reduced, no? As the judge, he should be held to a higher standard on determining what should or shouldn't be admissible, imo.

As for the second point, there doesn't seem to be an actual agreement at all. Merely an inference by one party. 

5 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Yeah, both are clearly at fault. But if the trial court judge ruled it as inadmissible, the chances for this outcome are drastically reduced, no? As the judge, he should be held to a higher standard on determining what should or shouldn't be admissible, imo.

As for the second point, there doesn't seem to be an actual agreement at all. Merely an inference by one party. 

1. Judges are overturned on appeal all the time. It's the entire point of the court and appellate system. The second you introduce questionable evidence, you run this risk. The only thing they could have tried was to delay the trial until getting a final ruling from PA SCOTUS on admissibility. Moving forward with that evidence meant they knowingly opened themselves up to this outcome.

2. Agreements don't have to be written. All Cosby has to prove is that he reasonably relied upon the statement that he would not be prosecuted, and that based upon that reliance he willingly gave testimony in the civil trial. The court basically ruled that Cosby relying upon the public and private statements of the DA was reasonable. That's binding, whether there is an agreement or not. The legal standard always comes back to what a "reasonable person" would believe. The DA should NEVER have made those statements. Furthermore, since Cosby got something (no prosecution) and the state got something (Cobsy's testimony in the civil action), there was compensation on both sides. That's the legal definition of a contract. 

14 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

1. Judges are overturned on appeal all the time. It's the entire point of the court and appellate system. The second you introduce questionable evidence, you run this risk. The only thing they could have tried was to delay the trial until getting a final ruling from PA SCOTUS on admissibility. Moving forward with that evidence meant they knowingly opened themselves up to this outcome.

2. Agreements don't have to be written. All Cosby has to prove is that he reasonably relied upon the statement that he would not be prosecuted, and that based upon that reliance he willingly gave testimony in the civil trial. The court basically ruled that Cosby relying upon the public and private statements of the DA was reasonable. That's binding, whether there is an agreement or not. The legal standard always comes back to what a "reasonable person" would believe. The DA should NEVER have made those statements. Furthermore, since Cosby got something (no prosecution) and the state got something (Cobsy's testimony in the civil action), there was compensation on both sides. That's the legal definition of a contract. 

1. Are you saying if the trial court judge rules the deposition as inadmissible, then Cosby is found guilty based on other evidence, that the likelihood of overturning the conviction remains just as likely because of the prosecution's attempt to admit the deposition even if it was ultimately deemed not admissible? Seems like a stretch.

 

2. An agreement implies two parties participating. This seems to be one party relying on the public statements of another party. That's not really an agreement. That's an inference based on one party's public statements. If that statement implies an agreement was reached, that's different, but I'd like to see what the actual statements were.

Now if there was indeed a private agreement with Cosby's legal team, I'd still say there needs to be evidence of the terms. What has the DA actually conceded here? 

59 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

The mistake was by the prosecutor for using the deposition testimony at all. Once that evidence was used, you were subject to this potential outcome; regardless of what the trial judge ruled, you were subject to overturn on appeal. Given the volume of other evidence, this was just dumb by the prosecutor. 

And no, a contract or agreement doesn't have to be reduced to writing. If it provides value to both sides (which this did) and was reasonably relied upon by the parties (which Cosby argues), then that is legally binding.

Actually, the Prosecutor can not use the Depo Transcript at Trial, until the Trial Judge rules that the Depo Transcript is admissible as evidence. That's where the true error occurred. 

6 minutes ago, jsdarkstar said:

Actually, the Prosecutor can not use the Depo Transcript at Trial, until the Trial Judge rules that the Depo Transcript is admissible as evidence. That's where the true error occurred. 

I think vikas is saying it was dumb for the prosecutor to even attempt to submit it in the first place. Which is 100% true. But it's just as dumb (arguably more, imo) for the trial court judge to have allowed it. I'm not sure I follow vikas when he says the judge's decision to admit it is irrespective of the conviction still being subject to be overturned on the grounds of it being attempted to be submitted. Might be a case of us talking past each other or some other sort of disconnect.

1 minute ago, we_gotta_believe said:

I think vikas is saying it was dumb for the prosecutor to even attempt to submit it in the first place. Which is 100% true. But it's just as dumb (arguably more, imo) for the trial court judge to have allowed it. I'm not sure I follow vikas when he says the judge's decision to admit it is irrespective of the conviction still being subject to be overturned on the grounds of it being attempted to be submitted. Might be a case of us talking past each other or some other sort of disconnect.

Ok. The Court also found problems with the Trial Court allowing other victims to testify at Trial. Their testimony was not about what happened to the Defendant and was prejudicial to the Defendant as it could bias the Jury and should not have been allowed. They could have overturned the case soley on this issue. 

3 minutes ago, jsdarkstar said:

Ok. The Court also found problems with the Trial Court allowing other victims to testify at Trial. Their testimony was not about what happened to the Defendant and was prejudicial to the Defendant as it could bias the Jury and should not have been allowed. They could have overturned the case soley on this issue. 

That's a separate issue then, but yeah, seems like lots of missteps ultimately leading to a rapist being set free. 

Having determined that a criminal trial likely could not be won, D.A. Castor contemplated an alternative course of action that could place Constand on a path to some form of justice. He decided that a civil lawsuit for money damages was her best option. To aid Constand in that pursuit, "as the sovereign,” the district attorney "decided that [his office] would not prosecute [] Cosby,” believing that his decision ultimately "would then set off the chain of events that [he] thought as a Minister of Justice would gain some justice for Andrea Constand.” Id. at 63-64. By removing the threat of a criminal prosecution, D.A. Castor reasoned, Cosby would no longer be able in a civil lawsuit to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination for fear that his statements could later be used against him by the Commonwealth.

Mr. Castor would later testify that this was his intent:

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that a person may not be compelled to give evidence against themselves. So you can’t subpoena somebody and make them testify that they did something illegalor evidence that would lead someone to conclude they did something illegalon the threat of if you don’t answer, you’ll be subject to sanctions because you’re under subpoena. So the way you remove that from a witness isif you want to, and what I did in this caseis I made the decision as the sovereign that Mr. Cosby would not be prosecuted no matter what. As a matter of law, that then made it so that he could not take the Fifth Amendment ever as a matter of law. So I have heard banter in the courtroom and in the press the term "agreement,” but everybody has used the wrong word. I told [Cosby’s attorney at the time, Walter] Phillips that I had decided that, because of [J-100-2020] - 11 defects in the case, that the case could not be won and that I was going to make a public statement that we were not going to charge Mr. Cosby. I told him that I was making it as the sovereign Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and, in my legal opinion, that meant that Mr. Cosby would not be allowed to take the Fifth Amendment in the subsequent civil suit that Andrea Constand’s lawyers had told us they wanted to bring. [Attorney] Phillips agreed with me that that is, in fact, the law of Pennsylvania and of the United States and agreed that if Cosby was subpoenaed, he would be required to testify. But those two things were not connected one to the other. Mr. Cosby was not getting prosecuted at all ever as far as I was concerned. And my belief was that, as the Commonwealth and the representative of the sovereign, that I had the power to make such a statement and that, by doing so, as a matter of law Mr. Cosby would be unable to assert the Fifth Amendment in a civil deposition. [Attorney] Phillips, a lawyer of vastly more experience even than meand I had 20 years on the job by that pointagreed with my legal assessment. And he said that he would communicate that to the lawyers who were representing Mr. Cosby in the pending civil suit. Id. at 64-66. Recalling his thought process at the time, the former district attorney further emphasized that it was "absolutely” his intent to remove "for all time” the possibility of prosecution, because "the ability to take the Fifth Amendment is also for all time removed

Castor warned the DA not to use the Depo Transcript.

Dear Risa, I certainly know better than to believe what I read in the newspaper, and I have witnessed first hand your legal acumen. So you almost certainly know this already. I’m writing to you just in case you might have forgotten what we did with Cosby back in 2005. Attached is my opinion from then. Once we decided that the chances of prevailing in a criminal case were too remote to make an arrest, I concluded that the best way to achieve justice was to create an atmosphere where [Constand] would have the best chance of prevailing in a civil suit against Cosby. With the agreement of [Attorney] Phillips and [Constand’s] lawyers, I wrote the attached as the ONLY comment I would make while the civil case was pending. Again, with the agreement of the defense lawyer and [Constand’s] lawyers, I intentionally and specifically bound the Commonwealth that there would be no state prosecution of Cosby in order to remove from him the ability to claim his Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination, thus forcing him to sit for a deposition under oath. [Attorney Phillips] was speaking for Cosby’s side at the time, but he was in contact with Cosby’s civil lawyers who did not deal with me directly that I recall. I only discovered today that [Attorney Phillips] had died. But those lawyers representing [Constand] civilly, whose names I did not remember until I saw them in recent media accounts, were part of this agreement because they wanted to make Cosby testify. I believed at the time that they thought making him testify would solidify their civil case, but the only way to do that was for us (the Commonwealth) to promise not to prosecute him. So in effect, that is what I did. I never made an important decision without discussing it with you during your tenure as First Assistant. Knowing the above, I can see no possibility that Cosby’s deposition could be used in a state criminal case, because I would have to testify as to what happened, and the deposition would be subject to suppression. I cannot 11 Mr. Steele has since been elected District Attorney of Montgomery County. [J-100-2020] - 17 believe any state judge would allow that deposition into evidence, nor anything derived therefrom. In fact, that was the specific intent of all parties involved including the Commonwealth and the plaintiff’s lawyers. Knowing this, unless you can make out a case without that deposition and without anything the deposition led you to, I think Cosby would have an action against the County and maybe even against you personally. That is why I have publically suggested looking for lies in the deposition as an alternative now that we have learned of all these other victims we did not know about at the time we had made the go, no-go decision on arresting Cosby. I publically suggested that the DA in California might try a common plan scheme or design case using [Constand’s] case as part of the res gestae in their case. Because I knew Montgomery County could not prosecute Cosby for a sexual offense, if the deposition was needed to do so. But I thought the DA in California might have a shot because I would not have the power to bind another state’s prosecutor. Some of this, of course, is my opinion and using Cosby’s deposition in the CA case, might be a stretch, but one thing is fact: the Commonwealth, defense, and civil plaintiff’s lawyers were all in the agreement that the attached decision from me stripped Cosby of this Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, forcing him to be deposed. That led to Cosby paying [Constand] a lot of money, a large percentage of which went to her lawyers on a contingent fee basis. In my opinion, those facts will render Cosby’s deposition inadmissible in any prosecution in Montgomery County for the incident that occurred in January 2004 in Cheltenham Township.