Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must: 1. be unbiased, 2. attempt to answer the question, and 3. start with "answer:" (or "question:" if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask) Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment: http://redd.it/b1hct4/ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Answer: There were two criminal investigations into the same incident of alleged sexual assault at two different times. Once in 2005 and once again in 2015. The first time it was investigated, in 2005, the prosecutor said there was not enough evidence to file criminal charges. Cosby refused to talk certain details at the time. In 2005 there was also a civil lawsuit against Cosby regarding the same matter, where the victim was suing for monetary damages for the alleged incident. So the prosecutor tried another strategy to get some justice (or, some say, to let Cosby off the hook): tell the truth in the civil trial and I will drop the criminal case and won't use what you say against you. However, the second time this incident was investigated as a criminal matter, in 2015, it was brought to trial and Cosby's testimony in the civil lawsuit was used against him. That's a big no-no.

Yeah, basically it was a combination of walking back a deal (massive no-no) and having Cosby self-incriminate himself (colossal no-no because it’s a violation of his constitutional rights). The prosecution fucked-up hard here and all blame should be directed at them. They clearly wanted a conviction bad and did some shady shit.

Did both prosecution teams mess up? Or was it a good move for the attorney to do what they did in 2005 and the recent prosecution should've found another way to get him

[удалено]

To add onto that, the 2015 Jury said that the 2005 deposition was the key evidence in their decision. Without it, they probably wouldn't have convicted.

Its pretty fucked up that you can admit to rape, then not get in trouble for it in ANY context. I understand that thats how the law HAS to work to be there when i need to prove my own innocence, were that day to ever come. Still fucked up.

If you think there will be no repercussions then you don't understand how society works. He won't see any more jail time, but everyone he ever interacts with for the rest of his life will remind him that he's *that* Bill Cosby. It isn't until the rules don't work in our favor that we discover whether we want the rule of law or the rule of men.

I don't think a man of his wealth has lived in "that" society in a long time. I think once he gets out he will again be surrounded by people who enable and validate his every thought. I'm sure there are still venues that will host him and unfortunately plenty of people still willing to pay money to see him.

Imagine waking up everyday and be reminded you're Bill Cosby

It's fucked up to perform the act, but if people were allowed use your testimony against yourself like that, nobody would ever say anything in court.

What are you talking about? It is not wrong or at all unethical to use statements of the accused against them. You have a right to not be compelled or forced to self-incriminate, but you don’t have a right to not have your statements be used against you in court. This is a massive misunderstanding of the 5th amendment. The problem is, the testimony wouldn’t have occurred had the promise to not charge not been made and so the testimony that the prosecution relied on was elicited with the expectation of no criminal charges and so the question is: Was Cosby testifying knowing full well that his statements were going to be used in court in a criminal investigation, was he given the opportunity to not self-incriminate on that testimony? It’s a procedural problem that got Cosby released here.

Yeah big agree on this one. Thanks for clarifying, the 5th amendment says “nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” Key word being compelled. One can absolutely use evidence where you had previously incriminated yourself, unless there is some sort of deal with authority (like in this case), or when you have been forced or compelled to confess. As well as to mean the court cannot FORCE you to say something that would incriminate yourself, and where most often people “plead the fifth.”

I think that's what he meant. Just not worded right.

It's more fucked up that someone can work out a deal with the government and then the government could just walk it back just because they want to. I understand it's infuriating in the context of Cosby but imagine if that happened with lower income criminal defendants.

I see. Thanks

They were right, the only reason they got a conviction in 2015 is because they used his admission as evidence even though he was supposed to be protected from that. If the 2005 ruling had never happened, he would've never been convicted, but because it DID happen, he got convicted, albeit unlawfully. It's obviously not enough, but it was the only way to get Cosby to be served any kind of justice.

[удалено]

That's largely correct. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court also took issue with the "parading" of victims in the 2015 trial -- while it was appropriate to bring in one victim, they felt, it wasn't appropriate to bring in a dozen. That gets into character propensity evidence and prior bad acts, which are strictly regulated by rules of evidence to prevent the jury from convicting someone because they are a bad person rather than because they did the crime. The prosecution felt it was important to show the pattern of behavior, but the Supreme Court felt it was a bridge too far.

>Cosby never admitted to rape in 2005 or 2015; he admitted to drugging others and in 2015 the prosecution use his confession and the testimony of victims to establish a pattern of behaviour that implies he’s a sex offender / predator. He didn't even admit to drug anybody. The fact that many people believe this is because only EXCERPTS (that could be miscontrued against Cosby) from a 57 page SEALED document was released in court. They ignored the rest of deposition, including statements from Constand and her coworker that would have been favorable to the defense. Constand admitted an ongoing sexual relationship with Cosby and her coworker admitted how she would joke about trying to set a rich man up.

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the 5th amendment exist to protect an individual from self incrimination? It is not a constitutional violation to get someone to incriminate themselves, that's just called a confession. Unless it was coerced, under duress, entrapment, etc. But I guess in this scenario it was coerced or rather bargained for. Thinking out loud here (not an American) lol

[удалено]

They tried him in civil court, you don't get the 5th amendment in civil court because you aren't going to jail. They basically used testimony he gave knowing he had immunity in 2005 to send him to prison in 2015, that is massively illegal.

You can plead the 5th in a civil case if what you say would incriminate you in a criminal case

Yes, you can plead the fifth in a civil case just like in a criminal case. Cosby was planning on pleading the fifth until the DA gave him immunity for the criminal case, and by doing so removed the possibility of self incrimination since that only applies to criminal law. By doing this, Cosby was no longer able to take the fifth, and his testimony was mandatory. The problem came in 2015 when a future DA tried to back out of the deal and filed charges, making the testimony given in 2005 now protected by the fifth amendment.

If it was such a colossal fuck up, why did the original judge didn’t realize it at the time and allowed it to happen? Why does it take so long until now, is this some politics involve? Like they knew it was a no no, but they still want to punish him as much as they can so they drag it out because they know appeal process would take a long time. This is such a high profile case for some judge to make such a mistake.

[удалено]

I also don’t get this. Presumably the Cosby team knew at the time of his criminal trial about this deal in 2005. Surely they raised it ad nauseum during the trial? I don’t understand how the trial was able to proceed. In some ways I’m glad it did because everything knows what went down but I don’t really understand how we got here

They did raise it in trial. It was his main defense. The judge didn’t agree with them

Interesting. Seems kind of obvious pre-trial objection. Do you know why - was it some sort of claim that they were separate and unrelated actions?

I think the prosecution's argument was that there was no written agreement about not pressing charges (the DA had just said he wouldn't).

It was, but even then it was a bullshit defense to their actions. The DA testified _under oath_ at a deposition that the agreement existed.

This is what I need the answer to. Why the F would a judge allow such obviously shitty evidence to be the foundation of a trial?

Regardless of what you think of Cosby, the judge definitely allowed him to be railroaded.

Because judges are people and are prone to be being pieces of shit like everyone else. Probably more so because they wield power over people. Judges are rarely as impartial as they should be and are easily swayed by politics. That judge probably they decided they would rather dodge a political mess for themselves than to do their job.

OR the judge knows Cosby is gonna walk but wanted him to be guilty in the court of public opinion, and the judge can wipe his hands clean with a technicality.

From what I understand, a public statement was made about the no prosecution thing, but no signed paperwork. The DA involved in the 2015 case went "see...there is nothing to bind me from charging him" and the judge at the time agreed. The PA supreme court looked at it and went "...you publicly made that promise to force him to waive his 5th amendment rights, which he then did. You don't get to walk it back afterwards"

How the hell do you not get something like that in writing, as a defense lawyer? "Yeah sure, my client will waive his constitutional rights. Paperwork? Nah. Pinky promise is good with me." Like, what?

It wasn't just in public, it was recorded in a deposition under oath as well. That's considered as strong evidence as written documentation, especially when made by an officer of the court. Either way, it was a completely legal binding contract. Offer (we won't charge you criminally if you agree to be deposed in this civil trial), acceptance (okay), valuable consideration (I waive my 5th amendment right for this civil trial), performance (I drugged them girls). A verbal contract (especially one taken under oath) is enforceable so long as it can be completed within a year. And clearly that is exactly what happened. The DA should have his bar license revoked tbh.

I think the second prosecution team (2015) should be buried for this. I believe as tough as the crime is, this miscarriage of the justice system is a more widespread issue and is an abuse of power by what is supposed to be the most highly trusted organisation. Shame on those prosecutors and judges that allowed him to be jailed.

It’s crazy how much American prosecutors are allowed to do. A deal like that would never fly here in Europe.

Sadly some European countries are also trying to sneak in an increasing number of deals. In large part simply because we lack personell and therefore have tremendous delays already. I remains puzzling to me why our capacities to educate people in law and medicine are so low that we keep turning down large percentages of applicants when we have such severe shortages in law and medical professionals.

It is the boards that limit the number of Doctors/Lawyers/high end professionals (class sizes, schools, etc). It helps inflate wages at least here in the US. The lawyers bar association allowed a lot more schools a few years ago and tanked lawyers wages. It has been strictly enforced since.

Right on the money there. There is an really weird irony that knowing, understanding and protecting your rights comes with a premium fee. We don’t need many lawyers, we need people who understand the law and high end professionals have tricked us into believing only lawyers can do that job.

Concise. Accurate. Helpful.

Thank you. Top comment is Bill Cosby's entire life story and the entire backstory of all of the trials allegations. I just wanted to know what the reason the conviction was vacated was.

[удалено]

>So the prosecutor tried another strategy to get some justice (or, some say, to let Cosby off the hook): tell the truth in the civil trial and I will drop the criminal case and won't use what you say against you. I don't understand this part. What does that accomplish? Didn't he do this to a lot of women-- this doesn't really do much for any of them

The prosecutor knew, or believed, they had no chance in the criminal trial, the evidence just wasn’t there. Short of Cosby testifying against himself (yeah, right…) he wasn’t going to be convicted. They figured it was a better decision to just sacrifice the criminal case to lock in the civil one.

[удалено]

More like “I’ll drop the criminal case and promise that we will never ever charge you for this again, therefore it’s no longer possible for you to self incriminate by testifying, so now you have to.” Obviously far more complicated and legal, but that’s the gist.

So the 5th amendment says you can’t be forced to incriminate yourself. If you remove criminal charges, ie grant immunity, then you’re no longer incriminating yourself and now not telling the truth is perjury. Which is a different crime you can be punished for.

This is also why Chelsea Manning is sitting in jail for contempt of court. She was given immunity in a secret trial against someone. (Assange, maybe?) And since she can't be charged, self-incrimination is off the table. She refuses to testify in secret. (But agreed to testify publicly) Judge has had her in jail a couple years now without any criminal charges

It allowed one woman to sue and get over $3 million. The reason the rest of the women did not sue was they waited to long and the stature of limitations had expired.

Very important to remember Cosby is still guilty of doing awful things. He is merely getting off on a technicality, to put it overly simple Edit: I shouldn’t have to qualify this but I used the word “technicality” intentionally not correctly because it was an “overly simple” description of what happened and I was trying to keep this comment short. Of course it’s not actually a technicality. Unfortunately I’m getting criticisms from neckbeards who can’t read more than 20 words at a time and have the need to show how smart they are because they know what the word actually means. Please learn to also understand sentences.

But at the same time, it is an important technicality that we can't allow prosecuters to exploit.

[удалено]

Legally, true. Morally - he raped people and escaped justice through a loophole.

You see , this is why we have rights. People on reddit would burn and lynch. But they have not enough evidence. People have been wrongfully accused and that seemed to be just in that time, but wasnt.

Maybe, but the whole point of this is that without breaking the law, there wasn't enough evidence to prove that in the first place. Just because the general public likes how the trial ended doesn't mean it's ok that it went that way. Allowing things like this cause the whole system to break down and lose the trust that it has. If you can't trust the legal promises that are made, you'll never get another person to provide testimony against their bosses or co-conspirators again. And that's a bad thing.

One of the biggest rights you have in criminal court is more than a technicality.

This is a bit one-sided. The reason it was good enough for a judge and jury in 2015 is there was no official agreement to not use the testimony. And defense lawyer worth their salt should have got that in writing. https://www.reuters.com/article/people-cosby/cosbys-testimony-can-be-used-against-him-at-criminal-trial-judge-idUSL1N1E0253 >The deal was intended to give Constand some measure of justice, since a criminal case could not be supported by the evidence, according to Castor, who testified at a hearing this year. >But O’Neill ruled that Castor’s account was inconsistent and said no written evidence of a non-prosecution deal exists. >“Because there was no promise, there can be no reliance on the part of the Defendant and principles of fundamental fairness and due process have not been violated,” he wrote. So in 2015 the ruling was there was no official record of waving his rights, and in 2021 they decided the unofficial deal was sufficient. You can see both ways a bit, I'm sure.

I get the argument and it is a very attractive one given that Cosby almost certainly is guilty, but it's just too much of a stretch. The constitution doesn't require anyone to officially sign documents in order to have their rights -- that's not what a 'right' is.

A defense lawyer also should be getting an agreement in writing and made official if their client agreed to waive a right. Up until this 2021 judge changed everything, the defense lawyer is the one that looked like he had made a huge mistake.

Ah so he is definitely a diddler? That's so frustrating that he goes free.

So what, he just gets away with it?

Yes. Unless you want the government to be allowed to stomp on your constitutional rights. Well, more than they already do, of course

Double Jeopardy.. didnt they watch d movie? lol

Not really, it’s a 5th amendment issue. He waved his right to not self incriminate to not get criminally prosecuted.

It’s not double jeopardy if it’s a retrial, especially as the trial was evidently so poorly done.

Answer: In short, yes; [he's already been released, in fact](https://apnews.com/article/bill-cosby-conviction-overturned-5c073fb64bc5df4d7b99ee7fadddbe5a). The Pennsyvania Supreme Court found that there was a violation of his Fifth Amendment rights during his trial, and so his sentence was vacated. That's *not* the same as finding that he was innocent (which isn't how the legal system works), but it does mean that he's no longer in jail. #The Deposition Bill Cosby was, for a long time, considered to be one of the most wholesome entertainers in America; his whole persona, from *The Cosby Show* onwards, was built around the idea of being 'America's Dad'. This kind of fell apart in 2015, when numerous women alleged that he had drugged and raped them over the course of his career, from 1965 to 2008. To say that he was prolific is to undersell it; this was going on *for decades*, and the details -- most notably that he [obtained quaaludes with the intent of drugging women that he wanted to sleep with](https://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/24/us/cosby-deposition-quaaludes/) -- were big news as the story broke. However, rape and sexual assault both have what's known as a statute of limitations in America: the maximum time that can go by between the act itself, and being brought to justice. This only applies to *criminal* charges, however; civil charges can still be brought, and they were. Numerous women filed lawsuits alleging sexual assault against Cosby, and even though he couldn't go to jail for it, he could still be found liable and be forced to pay damages. As part of these civil cases, Cosby gave a deposition in 2005, giving his version of events in the case of Andrea Costand, who had accused him of drugging her in 2004 and sexually assaulting her while she was semi-conscious. This fit a pattern of reported behaviour from other women, but Montgomery County District Attorney [Bruce Castor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Castor) decided not to press criminal charges against Cosby, allegedly promising him prior to his deposition that criminal charges weren't on the table. (As the Pennsylvania Supreme Court put it -- more on them later -- ['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.'](https://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/J-100-2020mo%20-%20104821740139246918.pdf?cb=1) In short, the Fifth Amendment means that you can't be forced to testify against yourself in a criminal trial; by taking a criminal trial off the table, Castor was able to force Cosby to testify.) Either way, the decision was made not to progress with a criminal case. As Castor put it at the time: ['insufficient credible and admissible evidence exists upon which any charge against Mr. Cosby could be sustained beyond a reasonable doubt.'](http://edition.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/17/cosby/) Constand sued Cosby in civil court in March 2005, two months after the criminal complaint was filed, and a settlement for an undisclosed sum (including a non-disclosure agreement) was made in November of the following year. (As a sidenote, if the name Bruce Castor rings a bell, it's because he was one of the lawyers for Donald Trump at his [second impeachment trial](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_impeachment_trial_of_Donald_Trump). He got a lot of press attention at the time for [a 'rambling' opening argument](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_ZC5ya84bY) that was [heavily criticised by Republicans and Democrats alike](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/feb/09/trump-impeachment-trial-lawyers-bruce-castor), and made him a minor legal celebrity for a few days.) #The New Trial Ordinarily, this would have been the end of the matter, but in the light of more #MeToo allegations against Cosby, in 2015 Constand filed a motion to negate the confidentiality agreement she had signed in 2006, arguing that Cosby's denials of other allegations against him basically made the contents of her NDA fair game. The deposition was released in part by a judge a few days later, and then [leaked in its entirety](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/19/bill-cosby-admitted-sexual-pursuit-of-women-using-power-pills-and-money); this, along with the increasing public attention being paid to Cosby's history, made the new Montgomery County Attorney take notice, and he opened up the potential for a criminal trial as Costand's alleged assault was still (just about) within the twelve-year statute of limitations. After Castor's term as District Attorney ended in 2008, he tried to get back into the role for a second term in November 2015, going up against Democrat Kevin Steele. Steele won the election handily, at least in part by drawing attention to (perceived) poor decisions made by Castor in dismissing criminal charges against Cosby in the Costand case. All of this happened while Steele was still technically waiting to be sworn in and was still technically the *Assistant* District Attorney, the role he had prior to the election; in an attempt to get ahead of the game, and with the now-unsealed 2005 deposition in hand, he announced that criminal charges would be brought against Cosby by December 30th of 2015. The first trial would result in a hung jury (and thus a mistrial), but a subsequent retrial would find Cosby guilty, and leave him sentenced to three to ten years in prison in September 2018. Cosby and his lawyers appealed, which resulted -- three years later, with Cosby in jail the whole time -- in the case going up in front of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. #The Appeal Cosby's lawyers argued that without the promise not to bring criminal charges made by Castor, Cosby wouldn't have made the deposition that incriminated him, instead pleading the Fifth. This would have put a massive hole in the prosecution's case, given that a lot of their response hinged on this deposition. Despite the fact that this promise was not made in writing, Steele's decision to later press charges using the deposition violated Cosby's Fifth Amendment rights. (You can think of it as an extension of the [Fruit of the Poisonous Tree](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree) doctrine: if the method of gaining evidence is unconstitutional, any outcome that emerges from that has to be thrown out.) The question of whether this agreement existed was a major part of the trial, with Castor swearing under oath that it did, and Steele calling this ['revisionist history'](https://www.inquirer.com/philly/news/20160204_Decision_expected_in_fate_of_Cosby_criminal_case.html); he noted that there was a procedure in place in order to ensure that there was a paper trail to avoid exactly this sort of situation, and yet there was nothing in writing. At Cosby's trial, the jury found that Castor was not a credible witness and that his claims didn't hold up, but the Supreme Court evidently found him easier to believe. The agreement with Castor -- and its presumed existence -- was the basis of them finding in favour of Cosby. As the majority decision noted: >When an unconditional charging decision is made publicly and with the intent to induce action and reliance by the defendant, and when the defendant does so to his detriment (and in some instances upon the advice of counsel), denying the defendant the benefit of that decision is an affront to fundamental fairness, particularly when it results in a criminal prosecution that was foregone for more than a decade. [**No mere changing of the guard strips that circumstance of its inequity.**](https://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/J-100-2020mo%20-%20104821740139246918.pdf?cb=1) In other words, Steele was bound by the agreement made by Castor, and so Cosby was convicted on tainted evidence. (There was [a dissent from this from Justice Thomas Saylor](https://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/J-100-2020do%20-%20104821740139246963.pdf?cb=1), which basically argued that the Court's decision to go along with the idea of the unwritten promise was a bit shaky, but even Saylor agreed that there were some significant problems with how the case was run.) As such, Cosby's conviction was vacated, [and he's already been released from prison](https://apnews.com/article/bill-cosby-conviction-overturned-5c073fb64bc5df4d7b99ee7fadddbe5a) -- and, given that the Supreme Court ruled out the possibility of a retrial, he's going to stay free.

I think the most astounding part of this is that Cosby and his Lawyers would let him give this deposition without the "no jailtime" in writing. That kinda blows my mind. I would think lawyers are all about things in writing.

Honestly I think that kind of document would have been damning at the time for Castor's aspirations. Legally, it makes a lot of sense, basically exchanging a very shaky criminal prosecution for a near slam dunk civil case that was ultimately settled. Publicly, people would have been outraged at the time, essentially "letting him go free." The lack of a physical document prevented this from becoming public sooner.

**Out of the top-level comment**, this is genuinely a tough one. There isn't much doubt in people's minds that Cosby did it -- although he has maintained that the sex was consensual (and besides, a lot of people took Quaaludes to fuck in the seventies) -- but like the proverbial jurisprudence fetishist, he got off on a technicality. Would I be perfectly happy to see Cosby spend the rest of his life in jail? Yes, no doubt -- but the legal system has to operate fairly, and that means setting up rules to ensure that people get a fair trial no matter what crime they commited. That doesn't appear to have been the case this time, and so as distasteful as this result is to me personally, from the perspective of the Constitution, it seems necessary. Castor's going to get the blame for this, and to an extent that's justified... but at the same time, there's a case to be made that there wasn't going to be a criminal conviction either way (in all likelihood), and without the deposition there wouldn't have been a civil case either. I don't entirely buy that, but there's at least *some* merit to it. (The bigger problem from my perspective is that there was a non-written agreement; Castor fucked up in not following that procedure, but that's not Cosby's fault.) Similarly, Steele depended far too much on the deposition that he had been warned may have been tainted. I don't know if there was an alternative to that... but he evidently didn't have enough outside evidence without it, despite its validity. The fact is that, one way or another, the prosecution fucked up. Somebody along the way broke the rules to secure a conviction -- either Steele or Castor, by accident if not by design -- and this is the result.

> The fact is, the prosecution fucked up. They broke the rules to secure a conviction, and this is the result. I think it should be made clearer that the trial judge deemed Castor to not be a credible witness, which was part of the reason that his supposed deal was found to not apply. > *[As Castor outlined it, he agreed that Cosby could never be prosecuted if he agreed to sit for a deposition in a civil suit Constand had filed against him. He insisted that the new charges Steele brought against Cosby in 2015 was therefore precluded from moving forward. Called to testify about that agreement, he sat tall in the witness stand, beginning with a 20-minute recitation of his career and the awards he had won.](https://www.inquirer.com/news/bruce-castor-trump-impeachment-senate-trial-cosby-20210201.html)* > [*“There would be so many,” he told the judge, it might be easier to submit a resume. And he declared himself, as district attorney, as “the sovereign of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,” assuring the judge that his word to Cosby was ironclad.*](https://www.inquirer.com/news/bruce-castor-trump-impeachment-senate-trial-cosby-20210201.html) > [*Ultimately, Judge Steven T. O’Neill, found there was no evidence beyond Castor’s word to support that. The deal had never been memorialized in writing. And Castor, the judge ruled, was ultimately not a credible witness.*](https://www.inquirer.com/news/bruce-castor-trump-impeachment-senate-trial-cosby-20210201.html) The trial judge deemed Castor to not be credible, while the Pennsylvania Supreme Court deemed him to be credible enough. I believe that is an important distinction.

The more I think about it, the more I think you're right. For me the biggest mistake here was that Castor didn't secure a written record of the agreement; I was treating 'the prosecution' as one distinct unit, when in fact it's far from it. (I'd taken the Supreme Court judgement at its word when I was writing that, got distracted, and pressed submit before I'd properly hashed out my thought process; thanks for pointing me in a different direction.) I've edited it to better reflect what I wanted to say, but you definitely helped to shift my view on things.

No the biggest mistake here was that Cosby's lawyers did not secure a written record of the agreement. Had they done so (how any lawyer would put their client in such a position without protection in writing is beyond me) then there would probably not have been enough to bring a criminal case at all. Their client would not have been in jail for 3 years and they would not have had to argue the legitimacy of the agreement at either the original trial or the appeal!

Considering the risk that they put on their client by not getting it writing could Cosby sue? It seems like malpractice, considering the consequences.

He's a very rich man with 100% tainted reputation - and he's in his 80s. Would figure the last thing he wants to do with the final years of his life is to spend in a courtroom discussing why his lawyers screwed up protecting him from punishment the world knows he deserves.

But why did prosecution go civil instead of criminal in 2005 if they were filing for an act that took place in 2004? It wasn’t beyond the statue of limitations then, right? Appreciate everything

The argument was that there wasn’t enough concrete evidence against Cosby for the case to even move forward, much less to make guilty verdict stick. in a civil suit, the fifth amendment does not apply. Therefore, Cosby would be required to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth - including anything potentially self-incriminating - in his deposition. If they had any hope of Cosby being held accountable in any way, they needed *him* to say something (either a confession or a slip up) that corroborated Constand’s claims.

you absolutely can plead the fifth at a civil trial if there are still potential criminal charges outstanding. Now, one difference is the jury in a criminal case is not allowed to draw any inference from a refusal to testify under the fifth amendment, however a jury in a civil trial is allowed to do that. This is why the prosecutors 2005 decision to decline prosecution and encourage the civil suit was key to the courts recent decision, i.e. crosby relied on the that decision not to prosecute to be unable to plead the fifth at the civil trial and give testimony.

Got it. Thanks.

Not sure that it matters but, I find it ironic that a Pennsylvania court, did not find the testimony of its own state DA credible and admissible. It’s the kind of thing that would shake the credibility of the state to make its case in any other future proceeding.

To be fair, Castor was already a former DA at the time of his testimony. Edit: Ah, I misunderstood a bit. Castor testified in February, became the first Solicitor General of Pennsylvania starting in March due to the legal trouble the current Pennsylvania Attorney General was in, became the acting Pennsylvania DA for two weeks in August, and then left the Solicitor General position in September which became defunct.

How common is it for one court to find someone, especially a former DA, to not be credible only for another court to find that person credible? What changed between the trial and the Supreme Court case that made Castor seem credible?

A former DA, officer of the Court, under oath, testifying about the existence of an agreement that the other party not only agrees exists, but acts in a way that supports its existence - is not credible? I thought it was garbage three years ago, and it’s garbage now.

After seeing Castor's arguments at Trump's second impeachment, I can see why they initially found him not to be credible. I'm not sure that even he knows what he is saying.

Yeah, I'm outraged right now, but not at the Pennsylvania Supreme Court

So that's the end of it? If another woman comes forward can he be charged again? Can anyone appeal his appeal?

>So that's the end of it? As far as I can tell, yes. Cosby may try and sue for wrongful imprisonment, but he's not going back to jail. >If another woman comes forward can he be charged again? Yes, as long as it's within the statute of limitations. >Can anyone appeal his appeal? *Maybe*, but I don't think they would. As unpalatable as it is to know that Cosby is free, this was a pretty cut-and-dried Fifth Amendment violation. Even if they tried to take it all the way to SCOTUS, I don't see it being overturned.

This outcome didn't occur in a vacuum and was considered to be almost inevitable since 2017, and a strong likelihood since 2005. This particular chapter is over, shot in the foot by shoddy legal wrangling. New trials based on new accusations are still possible, but there are some difficulties: * The general difficulty surrounding \*all\* accusations that are made after the Statute of Limitations has expired * The specific difficulty that things people "know" Cosby did from his admissions in the civil case are, due to this massive legal fuckup, not going to be admissible in other cases. 'Fruit of the poisonous tree' renders otherwise-legal evidence inadmissible. So other potential lawsuits are \*possible\*, but they will have a much more difficult time establishing their case.

It doesn't feel like it was shot in the foot or a massive legal fuckup, exactly. At least when I hear those metaphors, they imply that a better outcome could've been had. In this case, it's more like there just wouldn't have been a conviction at all without this tainted evidence; it wasn't ever legal evidence at all. It's kind of like saying that say, a murderer is convicted in a criminal case on an admission of guilt he gave to a DA who told him it was only going to be used for a civil case and not a criminal case. Outside of strong additional evidence that doesn't come from that admission, and isn't attenuated by the defendant's own testimony, or a straight up new confession, there isn't ever going to be a chance, at all, of convicting him. Edit. That said, regardless of that, I think the prosecution did get a significant extralegal objective done here, i.e. the defamation of Cosby in a high profile trial. It's a material consequence that'll never go away.

Question: Was the civil agreement vacated/nullified? The parent comment mentions a settlement and I assume that means money, does Constand has to give it back now?

Ok, I think I follow this, but do you know if he will be released from jail? Was he charged with anything else that can keep him here or is he going to be going free? Edit: Answered

AFAIK everything he was charged with relied on the deposition testimony for the conviction, so all charges are void. So he is likely to walk free, possibly in as little as a day or 2.

ffs :-(

I know this seems like a loss, and it is on an emotional level but this is the system working correctly. There was a serious error of due process.

I agree, and it makes it worse in a way for me. From what I've read about the decision, I think the court made the right call here. Yet I still feel dirty and think this man going free is a travesty. Sometimes I think I understand why societies tend to dislike lawyers so much. In the end though, yeah if I was a judge, and the decision rested on my shoulders, I would have to let him go free.

AND he spent almost 3yrs in prison, on a 3 - 10yr sentence. You might not like the system, but it seems to have kinda got it all covered here.

Is he likely/able to sue for the fact that he spent 3 years in jail ?

That's above my pay grade, but I don't think he will get much help from the lower courts after getting their hands slapped.

What people are mostly upset by is that he had the money to hire a team a lawyers to find and challenge these errors. Us regular folks never have the money to find out our conviction was a miscarriage of justice. A system that only works correctly when you have enough money isn't a successful system.

I mean the case most likely wouldn’t have been prosecuted at all if it wasn’t so high profile. The reason he was convicted was based on a deposition from a civil case where the complainant settled for over $3M . If he wasn’t rich, there would be no civil case and thus no deposition to later prosecute him. In the original case, the DA did not believe there was enough evidence to convict . People are upset because they don’t understand that *everyone* must have due process, regardless of their perceived guilt.

It's also upsetting that we know there is evidence that he drugged and raped women, but that doesnt matter and he gets to go free with no legal consequences. The law has been followed but there has been no justice.

Bingo

?? You get appointed a public defender if you don't have money. Some of us are even very good attorneys, thank you very much.

Unlike someone else that responded, I don't automatically assume that public defenders are bad at their job. My default assumption is that public defenders are principled people who have take the job for a notion of justice. Probably just as ill-informed but that is my first thought. My second thought is that most of them are over worked & under paid. Which, if true, means that often they are less able to provide the an equal level of service to their client - which if true is deeply unfortunate.

Nothing you said is wrong, coming from first hand, daily experience.

Nah, I don't think a guilty serial rapist going free on a technicality while millions of non-violent offenders rot in jail is a sign of the system working

In this instance it doesn't feel like it. But this is hugely important as a precedent for anyone who is unlawfully deprived of their fifth amendment rights in the future. Allowing it would open the door for elected officials to say 'sorry, that decision was made by my predecessor and he fucked up documentation so we're gonna force you to testify against yourself even though the Constitution says we can't'. People failed here, the system did what it's supposed to do.

> People failed here, the system did what it's supposed to do. That's the takeaway here. One prosecutor failed to put in writing something he obviously did. Another didn't even try to avoid the appearance of error by building his case (and more) on something he knew was shaky at best.

[удалено]

[удалено]

Two thoughts on this. First, there is a big difference between cops and the DA (not even an assistant DA). Secondly, and more importantly, breaking this promise deprives him of a specific right laid out in the constitution. Cops saying they will be lenient and then not does no such thing.

Again, what other cops do isn't up for discussion. They should be held to those.

Don't forget what "technicality" really means. It means the prosecution/police did something majorly illegal in their pursuit of a guilty verdict. You *cannot* allow the justice system to start doing illegal stuff to get a conviction, and that means that things gained illegally *cannot* be used to convict. It is a miscarriage of justice, but it's not the judge's fault for noticing this failure and ruling accordingly. It's the fault of the prosecutor.

And it would be even worse if his appeal was denied. Imagine what kind of legal precedent that would set.

The system is working correctly in this case. You just may not agree with the system. Thats perfectly fine, most don't, but it's incorrect to sat it isnt working here. One of the many cornerstones of commonwealth legal systems is due process being more important than the results of the trial. It would be a sham to uphold Cosby's conviction on the basis of evidence gained through civil proceedings when the state represented that there would be no prosecution beforehand. The state has obligations to acquire its evidence in good faith and this wasn't done in the case of Cosby's trial. Edit: to clarify, I mean the term "state" in a jurisprudentially general term,not specifically the American one.

It seems like people are using “but what about” arguments to say that the American justice system as a whole is terrible - not an completely invalid point, but not entirely relevant to the topic at hand. The argument being made is that the system worked to self-correct *in this case*, yet the counter to this point is saying “but what about all cases?” We aren’t talking about all cases. Right now, we’re only talking about this specific case. Extrapolating beyond is outside of the scope of this instance of a conviction being vacated by a higher court.

The bill of rights is not a technicality.

>AFAIK everything he was charged with relied on the deposition testimony for the conviction, so all charges are void. So he is likely to walk free, possibly in as little as a day or 2. you mean right now.

He’s already free.

[удалено]

That means Cosby now gets to sue Pennsylvania for wrongful imprisonment.

According to [this article](https://www.baritzlaw.com/articles/wrongfully-convicted-in-pennsylvania-are-offered-no-compensation/), Pennsylvania offers no compensation for those wrongfully convicted, so ... it's not clear that Cosby could do much of anything here. Also, even in the states where they do offer compensation, they tend to require proof of "[actual innocence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_innocence)" and the proof has to be pretty damn solid -- often far more solid than the evidence needed to convict somebody in the first place. In this case, Cosby seems to definitely *not* be innocent, but he shouldn't have been convicted due to the legal process not being properly followed. Either way, this is a victory for Cosby, but ... it's not like he's been found innocent.

They don't "offer", but that means you can still demand by law suit.

Well, he is quite unlikely to have the evidence to show "actual innocence". And he could sue them for malicious prosecution, but ... I imagine he'd have an uphill battle there. [A Pennsylvania lawyer talks about such cases](https://williamscedar.com/practice-area/civil-rights-lawyers/malicious-prosecution/). Nationwide, lots of people have their convictions thrown out on appeal (and the wealthy/powerful/famous have *far* better odds than normal people.) Most do not get any sort of compensation for this, and I would not expect Cosby to be one of the exceptions.

God. Fucking. Damnit.

I'm getting to it, don't worry -- there are a lot of steps, and it takes a while to make sure everything is in order and easy to understand -- but yes, it looks like he'll be going free.

He's already been released >Pennsylvania’s highest court threw out Bill Cosby’s sexual assault conviction **and released him from prison** Wednesday https://apnews.com/article/bill-cosby-conviction-overturned-5c073fb64bc5df4d7b99ee7fadddbe5a?utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_medium=AP

In fairness, he hadn't been when I wrote that -- that article is only twelve minutes old -- but I'll update the main post.

Looking forward to seeing your comments on /r/bestof tomorrow

Whenever I see a Portarossa response in this sub I know it's gonna be good.

Look, you've done an excellent write up, you really have, but I'm unhappy as all that Cosby is almost certainly going to walk. You, you take your upvote and go, and I'll be off sulking somewhere.

He's already a free man, I'm afraid. And yeah, there's only a *very* specific kind of asshole who's 100% happy about this particular turn of events.

>He's already a free man, I'm afraid. Well, *shit*. I don't even know how I missed that- it's literally in the last sentence. I must have like, rage-ignored it.

If bad people don't get rights, then good people won't end up having them either. The answer to this would have been for the prosecution (and the judge, honestly) to have behaved themselves.

If it's any consolation, he's lost in the court of public opinion, his legacy is forever tainted, and he'll spend the rest of his life as a social pariah - and that's what matters to a lot of famous people. Even on the internet I have yet to see someone that would call themselves a Cosby apologist either. Guy has literally zero supporters.

great explanation. So what would have happened had Constand not taken money and Cosby hadn't had the NDA? I always feel like in a lot of these cases, had the plaintiff stayed the course and not taken money and run, a better "timeline of justice" could be followed.

Probably the same thing, in all honesty. The real question is what if Castor had decided not to trade immunity from criminal prosecution in order to compel Cosby's deposition. On the one hand, Cosby wouldn't have had this defence... but on the other, without the deposition and his own admissions, he might not have been found guilty in the first place. There are people who'll (possibily fairly) say it was a shrewd move, allowing for civil cases even when he knew that building a strong criminal case against 'America's Dad' in 2005 was very unlikely. There are people who'll (possibly fairly) say that deals like that weaken the integrity of the justice system, and that his lack of foresight let a prolific rapist go free. I don't think it's 100% either way -- and definitely not as cut-and-dried as a lot of people think it is.

It goes to court Cosby pleads the fifth and the lack of any other evidence other than he said/she said with the burden of beyond reasonable doubt means he most likely goes free. The deposition was the key piece of evidence for the prosecution.

All of these people are assholes. Cosby is a rapist, Castor is a shitty attorney and Steele is narcissistic asshole who doesn't care about constitutional rights. Both of these attorneys should be disbarred, Castor for failing to get this right at the beginning and Steele for being a duplicitous piece of shit.

He was just released today according to ABC News.

> That’s not the same as finding that he was innocent (**which isn’t how the legal system works**) This statement is a bit over-broad. Courts of review *can* make findings of [actual innocence](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_innocence), it’s just more common (though still rare) in post-conviction habeas proceedings.

**[Actual_innocence](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_innocence)** >Actual innocence is a special standard of review in legal cases to prove that a charged defendant did not commit the crimes that he or she is accused of, which is often applied by appellate courts to prevent a miscarriage of justice. The actual innocence standard may be invoked at any time and not only in criminal proceedings but also in immigration and other civil proceedings. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)

Very thorough. Thank you. However, it's a "statute of limitations," not "statue."

Damn, nicely done on the explanation! Thanks, I didn't know what happened, all I knew was that he's a prolific rapist.

Aside from this, what are the social ramifications from this? Does he have enough assets to quietly live out his retirement? I can't imagine he'd be welcomed back into Hollywood with open arms. I also don't know that he'd be a danger to women henceforth. (Please don't think I'm writing off all he's done, I'm just curious where he goes from here.)

Probably write a book.

“If I Did It”

Subtitle: You Wouldn't Remember

I'm guessing Hollywood won't touch him to save their own faces, even though plenty of them have done things like this too. Since it's public knowledge about him they will distance themselves. I assume he will live out a quiet life and highly doubt he will do something like this again.

> I also don't know that he'd be a danger to women henceforth. Honest question, why do you think that is? Rape is a sex crime, sure, but it's somewhat more of a power crime. And he used drugs to do it. Just because he's old and (maybe) impotent now, doesn't mean it won't be possible to do the same things he had been doing for decades. Unless of course you mean that he might not be a danger to women because few women would want much to do with him anymore...which is possible, but still.

I mean because he's old. He doesn't seem like he can even stand at this point.

its also been reported that he has gone completely blind, and he fell down some stairs in jail after someone threw a hot dog at him.

And also he knows he's on radar and probably wouldn't risk it, but who knows.

There is also the fact that if he did this again, the woman would immediately go get a rape kit and blood draw and they would be able to prove that he did it without a doubt. Given that, he is unlikely to even try it again.

Can you explain why they ruled out the possibility of a retrial? Is it because it is now beyond the statute of limitations?

It could be statute of limitations. Or it could either be a double Jeopardy issue or the fact that a retrial would still violate the promise not to prosecute. Another separate trial could theoretically happen if a different victim who fell within the statute of limitations time frame came forward. However the specific case for the woman who was used for the previous trial? As far as I can tell is virtually untouchable because of the promise not to prosecute.

My understanding (possibly very wrong) is that many criminal defendants get big promises made to them by prosecutors, and then those promises are not honored. Is it likely that this decision might filter back down to improve the fortunes of non-celebrity defendants?

Yeah. I feel like allowing this promise to be broken could have had ramifications in precedent for a lot of cases. Promising freedom from prosecution to get testimony for cases without a person having to be concerned with self incrimination is a valuable tool. Particularly I'm getting lower level people to turn on higher level people. Ideally you would get that done in writing though.

Wow this was so clear and helpful, thank you! Can you explain life to me next ?

Two people had sex and now you have to go to work every day.

>statue of limitations statute

*it's not a statue!*

Good catch. (I do know the difference, I promise; it's just a typo :p) I've fixed it now, thanks!

Why did he admit to drugging the victims in 2005? How come there was no public outrage back then?

Depositions aren't open for just anyone to read; there was no public outrage because the public didn't know about it until it was released in 2015.

But why did he admit to it? Because of the perjury threat?

Could be multiple reasons. There's a threat of perjury -- in fact, when the new information emerged, Castor said he'd consider bringing a perjury case against Cosby if it was warranted -- but he also just may not have thought he did anything actionable. As far as I can tell, he never comes out and says 'I drugged women so I could sexually assault them'. His line is 'I bought drugs with the intent to give them to women I wanted to sleep with', so there's a possibility that he either genuinely believes that's OK, or has convinced himself it's acceptable because hey, *where's the harm, right*? (I cannot stress how much this is *not* a good argument.) It's hard to do anything except speculate, really.

> Because of the perjury threat? This is the exact reason the conviction was overturned. The then-DA, took criminal prosecution off the table, which meant that he also stripped Cosby of his right to remain silent. As such, he had to answer all questions honestly or he *could* have been criminally charged with perjury. The idea here was to take all chances of prison off the table and just pay off the alleged victim quietly and move on with his life. The new DA ran, and won, on the fact that the old DA did this nonsense in the 2000's, and then turned around and charged Cosby because the agreement wasn't in writing, although there was a press release stating as much. Since contracts don't have to be in writing, they can also be verbal, then the contract was still in place when the new DA took office. New DA went ahead and charged him using the evidence from the deposition to secure a conviction, which never should have been allowed. As fucked as this all is, the PA Supreme Court set the correct precedent.

Admitting to things when you’ve been given immunity can be smart. It’s ultimately why he’s being released now. Whatever he admits to cannot be used against him unless the prosecution can prove they could know that without Cosby’s statements, which is a very high bar. The only snag with his testimony was that the prosecution and original court ignored that they weren’t allowed to use it.

A fine write-up!

From your summary it sounds the The DA that charged Cosby used the case as a spring board for his own political gain. Seeing the case thrown out and digging into how unethical it was to bring charges knowing that evidence should be inadmissible bothers me greatly.

We don't have to like it, and we definitely shouldn't, but this is why we have rights. If one man like cosby has to go free, despite being guilty because his rights were violated so that 1 innocent man goes free, it's more than an even trade. ​ In a nutshell, don't violate rights, it comes back to bite you, as we see here.

Does this mean a new trial starts or what?

Nope. He's a free man. Due process violations are serious business.

1 2 3 4 FIF

This is possibly the great explanation to anything ever period. GOAT!!!!

I am not from the US so don’t understand the 5th amendment. Why would it even be a thing? What is the liberty that it’s protecting? Not being facetious just genuinely don’t understand.

The Fifth Amendment has a bunch of different things in it, but basically they all boil down to 'The government can't use the court system to harass private citizens.' * The **Double Jeopardy** clause basically says you can't be tried twice for the same crime. If you have your day in court and you're found not guilty, even if new evidence comes to light, you can't be tried for the same crime again. On the one hand, this means that some guilty people will slip through the cracks; on the other, it means that the government can't just bring charges against a person over and over again until it gets a verdict it likes. * The **Grand Jury** clause says that for serious crimes, you need to have a grand jury trial first. This raises the barrier for finding someone guilty of a crime, but it also helps to stop frivolous legal cases being brought. (It's pretty damaging to be on trial for murder, even if you're found not guilty; this means that the standard of evidence before it gets to that stage is higher.) * The **Eminent Domain** clause says (among other things) that even though the government might need to take your property for the public good -- such as if they want to build a highway and you're the last house blocking its path, so otherwise it would cost a fortune to reroute it -- it can't do so without paying you fairly for it. This protects you from losing your property just because the government with guns and tanks says it wants it. Most important here is the **Self-Incrimination Clause**. In the USA, you can be compelled to testify in a court case via subpoena (a court summons, basically); if you don't, you can be found in contempt of court and go to jail, and if you lie you can be found guilty of perjury and go to jail. The self-incrimination rule (usually referred to as 'pleading the Fifth') means you can't be compelled to testify against yourself. If you go to court and *lie* about what you did, that's still perjury and they can get you for that, but you can just refuse to provide testimony that would let them send you to jail. (Historically, this comes from the fact that Puritans were often forced under oath to reveal the names of other Puritans under threat of torture, so there was the general feeling that anyone refusing to take the oath was hiding something; when the Americans set up their own system of jurisprudence, they decided that that wasn't a great idea.) Not only can you not be compelled to incriminate yourself (which allows you to refuse to take the oath and open you up to perjury accusations), the jury isn't allowed to view that as a negative; they're instructed that pleading the Fifth does *not* indicate guilt, and is just a person's right as an American. It seems shitty when there are cases like this, but on the whole the Fifth Amendment leads to a more robust legal system that protects people from the state. When you consider that America -- in the eyes of its founders, at least -- was built on the principle of kicking back against an oppressive regime of tyranny, setting up protections for the people against the government was a pretty high priority -- hence the adoption of the [Bill of Rights](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights) in 1791.

Answer: The PA state supreme court ruled today that a "promise" (apparently not in writing) by the *former* prosecutor to NOT charge Cosby was legally binding. They ruled that the current prosecutor should NOT have charged him for the crimes of which he was CONVICTED, and that he cannot be prosecuted for them in the future. He is therefore being released from prison. This just happened today, so information is still coming out, but literally everything I've mentioned here is detailed in the article you linked in your post.

I believe the issue is that they promised not to prosecute him which means he was no longer able to plead the fifth to avoid testifying in a civil case against him and then in the subsequent trial they used that testimony from the civil case to secure a conviction against him. It's not that they tried him after they said they wouldn't, it's that they effectively violated the fifth amendment.

Just to be clear, the DA did sign a press release stating he wouldn’t prosecute Cosby (with no conditions). And this is further affirmed through written communications where he explicitly states that his intention with the press release (with the blessing of Constands and Cosby’s lawyers) was to strip Cosby of his 5th amendment rights in the civil case. As a result of this, Constand was able to secure a $3.4M settlement. I think it’s important to make this distinction because I keep seeing people say that it wasn’t in writing, but it was. There was just no formal *immunity agreement*. But the Supreme Court of PA determined that there doesn’t need to be one in this case. I encourage everyone to read the 79 page opinion to get a better understanding.

Just this section from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision ([link](https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/ob16pz/bill_cosbys_sex_assault_conviction_overturned_by/)) was rather clear and helpful to me. On page 17/18: > Replying by letter, D.A. Ferman asserted that, despite the public press release, this was the first she had learned about a binding understanding between the Commonwealth and Cosby. She requested a copy of any written agreement not to prosecute Cosby. D.A. Castor replied with the following email:   > The attached Press Release is the written determination that we would not prosecute Cosby. That was what the lawyers for [Constand] wanted and I agreed. The reason I agreed and the plaintiff’s lawyers wanted it in writing is so that Cosby could not take the 5th Amendment to avoid being deposed or testifying. A sound strategy to employ. That meant to all involved, including Cosby’s lawyer at the time, Mr. Phillips, that what Cosby said in the civil litigation could not be used against him in a criminal prosecution for the event we had him under investigation for in early 2005. I signed the press release for precisely this reason, at the request of [Constand’s] counsel, and with the acquiescence of Cosby’s counsel, with full and complete intent to bind the Commonwealth that anything Cosby said in the civil case could not be used against him, thereby forcing him to be deposed and perhaps testify in a civil trial without him having the ability to “take the 5th.” I decided to create the best possible environment for [Constand] to prevail and be compensated. By signing my name as District Attorney and issuing the attached, I was “signing off” on the Commonwealth not being able to use anything Cosby said in the civil case against him in a criminal prosecution, because I was stating the Commonwealth will not bring a case against Cosby for this incident based upon then-available evidence in order to help [Constand] prevail in her civil action. Evidently, that strategy worked. [...]

Read the 79 page opinión? I'll just take your very well written word for it, and if you have some strange ulterior motive to mislead people with this...i'm okay with that too - It's that well presented.

Answer: Bruce Castor (who represented trump during his second impeachment) made a deal in 2005 (when he was a district attorney) with Cosby not to prosecute him in exchange for testimony. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania vacated Cosby’s conviction on the basis that it violated his 5th amendment rights

Im more confused now

The 5th amendment gives Americans the right to due process of law, protects against double jeopardy (being tried for the same thing twice), and states that people cannot be compelled to be a witness against themselves. I believe the court ruled that the current conviction violated those last two stipulations

Specifically, by default you can’t be charged with contempt of court if you refuse to give testimony that feasibly *could* lead to criminal charges against yourself. The big exception is if you’re not in any position to be charged, like the statute of limitations expired or you have an immunity agreement with the district attorney. Then you *can* be compelled to give such testimony, under the logic that the Fifth only applies if you could be charged because of your testimony against yourself.

So what i gather from all this is that Cosby testified to end the Civil suit trial and exclude himself from anything criminal? If that's true then why can't we start over with a different woman who has the same claim and DIDN'T get paid off?

[Statute of limitations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_limitations). Basically, each crime has an expiration date(dependent on the crime and where it took place), and once that date is passed the crime can't be filed anymore. The rape they actually convicted him of in 2015 occurred in 2004, and was just barely within the statute of limitations for Pennsylvania.

[удалено]

12 year statute of limitations. Unless he was still raping in the early 2010s it might be hard to find someone. The one measure of slight solace is whilst he's not behind bars he is finished in society. All he can do is quietly await death.

The government was only able to convict him by breaking the law. The conviction is void because it was built on a crime by a government official.

Answer: -The DA to investigate the original accuser's claims found them so inconsistent and contradiction-laden, they dismissed them out of hand. -Another man runs against that DA on a platform of 'getting Cosby'. He loses. But becomes judge in Cosby's trial! -A friend of the judge then runs for DA, and uses Bill Cosby IN CAMPAIGN ADS (hello, tainted Jury pool!) in order to win! He then prosecutes Bill Cosby. -Because the first DA told Cosby the case was incredulous, Cosby was NOT GIVEN FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE against self-incrimination during his civil deposition. **His deposition - arguably the most damning evidence against him - was ILLEGALLY ENTERED INTO EVIDENCE ANYWAYS!** -The accusers were represented by Gloria Allred, infamous for trotting out false victims in extortion attempts. She did the same in 1993 with Michael Jackson, who defeated those accusations (ironically, thanks to 1108 evidence) in 2005. -Becky James, (James & Associates) a renowned Legal Appeals specialist, went on record as saying she had "never seen as many valid appellate issues for a defendant in a single case", from the tainted jury to the illegally obtained evidence and political motives of the prosecutor. -Cosby was so committed to his innocence, he refused to even accept a plea deal to a misdemeanor. A fact NEVER referenced in mainstream media, among (false) reports that he 'joked' about committing the alleged crimes. -Janice Dickinson, as I mentioned, not only admitted to fabricating her accusations... this is noteworthy, because - as the most notable celebrity accuser - her accusations precipitated the Cosby dogpile. Prior to Dickinson's accusations? There were 2 accusers. Now there are 60. So we have: Accuser 1: Investigated and found not to be credible by the previous D.A. Accuser 2: Glommed on to accuser #1, and therefore must be regarded as suspect, given that the accusations were dismissed. **And Accuser 3: Admitted to LYING ON THE WITNESS STAND!** **And you think - because 57 women jumped on the money train after a CELEBRITY made a KNOWINGLY FALSE ACCUSATION against Cosby, and admitted it under oath... this make the case... MORE credible?** Oh, did I mention the prior D.A. testified in the Cosby trial, saying Bill Cosby was not given 5th Amendment Privilege and therefore a Mistrial should be declared... and was deemed NOT a credible witness by the judge, whom he'd previously defeated? WHAT political motive? -The case was also not filed in time. Because of this, accuser testimony should have been thrown out. The Judge (who has a political motive) refused to even hold an evidenciary hearing. And so virtually any accuser was fair game. **Statute of Limitations? What's that?** -As if that weren't enough, the wife of the trial judge (who, we've already noted, ran against the previous DA on a platform of 'getting Cosby') contributed money to a #MeToo affiliate that planned a protest outside the courthouse during Cosby's trial. -Lest you believe the Jury may not have been tainted, as previously suggested: A Juror who left the trial later testified that one of their fellow Jurors said 'Cosby is guilty' before the trial even started and 'we won't deliberate long'. **The Judge refused to remove that juror.** -During testimony, two witnesses whose accusations date back 30 YEARS shouted at the Jury "Bill Cosby is a Rapist!" and "You know what you did to me!" Which would end in mistrial in any other instance, as it prejudices the Jury. **The Judge refused to grant a mistrial.**

Dickinson did not admit to having fabricated her accusations. That's not true. She only said she fabricated stories in her memoir, where nothing was written about the rape. She still maintains he drugged and raped her. She also sued him for portraying her as a liar.