Bill Cosby's Sex Assault Conviction Overturned by Court

[c.d.]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/bill-cosbys-sex-assault-conviction-overturned-by-court/ar-AALD5IP?li=BBnb7Kz

c.d.

[etenguy]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime...5IP?li=BBnb7Kz c.d.

Hi c.d.

I know too little of the details to comment on whether I think this is a good or bad decision. But he was released due to a procedural technicality rather than because of evidence relating to the alleged crime. I'm a strong supporter of fair and due process to ensure justice is properly exercised but it would be interesting to understand better how that applies in this case. If I have understood properly, a prosecutor said he would not prosecute after Bill Cosby provided some incriminating evidence. Is that correct? If so, why would a prosecutor make such a promise?

[GUT]

My understanding is the appeal was allowed because the judge let in inadmissible evidence a verdict of acquittal was entered, rather than a retrial, because the prosecution previously promised not to prosecute. Sure a technicality, but then law is all about technicalities, is evidence admissible (technicality) is it believed (technicality isn’t it) was the burden of proof discharged (another technicality) did they get a fair trial (technicality) was the confession coerced or beaten out of them (technicality really).

[etenguy]

My understanding is the appeal was allowed because the judge let in inadmissible evidence a verdict of acquittal was entered, rather than a retrial, because the prosecution previously promised not to prosecute. Sure a technicality, but then law is all about technicalities, is evidence admissible (technicality) is it believed (technicality isn’t it) was the burden of proof discharged (another technicality) did they get a fair trial (technicality) was the confession coerced or beaten out of them (technicality really).

Thanks GUT - Your summary fits with what I have read and you are quite right, process and technicalities are important to ensure the fair administration of the justice system. I am just surprised the prosecution previously promised not to prosecute - maybe that is part of some normal process. I have heard of people being given immunity from prosecution in exchange for evidence against someone else, but this is the first time I have heard of the circumstances as reported. Probably just my ignorance of how the system works.

[Ginger]

If I have understood properly, a prosecutor said he would not prosecute after Bill Cosby provided some incriminating evidence. Is that correct? If so, why would a prosecutor make such a promise?

The deposition was made as part of a civil case Constand v. Cosby. You can read about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea...H._Cosby%2C_Jr. Cosby had sex with Constand, after supplying her with pills (which she took voluntarily) to help her relax. She continued to see him socially, and even introduced him to her parents. About a year later, she decided that she had been sexually assaulted, and filed charges. Cosby was deposed in the course of the investigation, and was promised criminal immunity, as the sexual behaviour was not considered, at the time, to rise to the level of a criminal offense, although Cosby had possibly engaged in criminal behaviour regarding the drugs. A financial settlement was made. About ten years later, the case was re-opened on IMHO very dubious grounds, and the whole sorry spectacle followed.

It's worth noting that the good citizens of Montgomery County, who elected Mr. Steele on the strength of his promise to disregard the promise of immunity given by the previous DA Castor, are now liable not only for the cost of the prosecution, but in all likelihood for whatever damages Mr. Cosby wins.

[etenguy]

The deposition was made as part of a civil case Constand v. Cosby. You can read about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea...H._Cosby%2C_Jr. Cosby had sex with Constand, after supplying her with pills (which she took voluntarily) to help her relax. She continued to see him socially, and even introduced him to her parents. About a year later, she decided that she had been sexually assaulted, and filed charges. Cosby was deposed in the course of the investigation, and was promised criminal immunity, as the sexual behaviour was not considered, at the time, to rise to the level of a criminal offense, although Cosby had possibly engaged in criminal behaviour regarding the drugs. A financial settlement was made. About ten years later, the case was re-opened on IMHO very dubious grounds, and the whole sorry spectacle followed.

It's worth noting that the good citizens of Montgomery County, who elected Mr. Steele on the strength of his promise to disregard the promise of immunity given by the previous DA Castor, are now liable not only for the cost of the prosecution, but in all likelihood for whatever damages Mr. Cosby wins.

Thanks Ginger, I'm not sure I fully understand, but your explanation helps.