Bill Cosby set free

[3rd_gear_Ted]

Real simple, Justice for the rich and justice for the poor

[greglepore]

Bruce Castor...

[stevej37]

He's prob all of a sudden healthy again.

[matthewb0051]

Author: Amy Lutz (FOX43), Cale Ahearn (FOX43), Travis Pittman

"The (Penn) Supreme Court agreed to review two aspects of the case that Cosby’s lawyers challenged. The first involved the judge’s decision to let prosecutors call five other accusers. The other examined Cosby’s argument that he had an agreement with a former prosecutor that he’d never be charged." Italics added to clarify state.

I'm still looking for the opinion. But I knew all along that there was an appellate issue by allowing witnesses testify about uncharged misconduct that was the exact same as the charges.

Fed Rule of Evidence 404b:
Evidence of any other crime, wrong, or act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.

Add that to Rule 403 which allows the court to exclude evidence for several reasons, including unfair prejudice and misleading the jury.

Although those are the Federal Rules, the states have near identical versions.

During the first trial the judge excluded witnesses who would testify that he had done similar acts to the charged acts.

Second trial judge allowed those alleged victims to testify, even though he was not charged with a crime against them.

Bad idea for the prosecution to introduce this evidence because it put their case at risk of appellate relief. Ditto for the judge.

[GH85Carrera]

Originally Posted by matthewb0051

Author: Amy Lutz (FOX43), Cale Ahearn (FOX43), Travis Pittman

"The (Penn) Supreme Court agreed to review two aspects of the case that Cosby’s lawyers challenged. The first involved the judge’s decision to let prosecutors call five other accusers. The other examined Cosby’s argument that he had an agreement with a former prosecutor that he’d never be charged." Italics added to clarify state.

I'm still looking for the opinion. But I knew all along that there was an appellate issue by allowing witnesses testify about uncharged misconduct that was the exact same as the charges.

Fed Rule of Evidence 404b:
Evidence of any other crime, wrong, or act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.

Add that to Rule 403 which allows the court to exclude evidence for several reasons, including unfair prejudice and misleading the jury.

Although those are the Federal Rules, the states have near identical versions.

During the first trial the judge excluded witnesses who would testify that he had done similar acts to the charged acts.

Second trial judge allowed those alleged victims to testify, even though he was not charged with a crime against them.

Bad idea for the prosecution to introduce this evidence because it put their case at risk of appellate relief. Ditto for the judge.

It almost make you wonder if that level of incompetence was paid for by Cosby. He knew he had to do some jail time, and a just sentence was handed down. Now we find out the prosecutor is not following procedure as is his sworn duty. Rich man goes free and likely will be re-sentenced to time served. His reputation is that of a rapist. He will be shunned by Hollywieird elite, and live out his life at home. His wife somehow stays with him through all that.

[URY914]

Some of those women that he raped will be waiting for him when he is released.

[matthewb0051]

Originally Posted by GH85Carrera

Now we find out the prosecutor is not following procedure as is his sworn duty. .

There are some exceptions to the rule I cited but the judge has to balance the value of the testimony against the possible harm it could cause. No doubt the DA wanted to use the witnesses to prove he acted in a similar fashion in all charges, that he had a trait or character to commit illegal sexual acts.

Sure he probably does have that trait but FFS don't muddy the waters. Just saw the wood in front of you. I've seen many cases go sideways for DAs when they try to get smart, or cute as my mother would say. It usually works in reverse to their plans.

As to sentence: the PA supreme court vacated the conviction. So he walks period full stop, no conviction. But I've known some DAs who would rather risk the appeal just to get SOME jail time regardless of how it turns out years later. There's a word for that...

[matthewb0051]

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/bill-cosby-sex-assault-conviction-overturned-pennsylvania-court

"The justices voiced concern not just about sex assault cases, but also what they saw as the judiciary’s increasing tendency to allow testimony that crosses the line into character attacks. The law allows the testimony only in limited cases, including to show a crime pattern so specific it serves to identify the perpetrator."

[Joe Bob]

Civil suits....unless he already paid them off.

[KFC911]

Eff BC and even Jello Pudding too imo .... a real POS

[Nostril Cheese]

remember that brief period in time when Cosby was seen as wholesome and the Simpsons was subversive?

[matthewb0051]

If anyone cares to read the 79 page opinion

https://www.scribd.com/document/513671691/Bill-Cosby-ruling#fullscreen&from_embed

[matthewb0051]

Originally Posted by Joe Bob

Civil suits....unless he already paid them off.

That's what caused the issue. DA knew that one case wouldn't survive so he declined to prosecute which forced Cosby to testify in that civil case wherein he made some incriminating statements. Later the new DA decided to prosecute in that case and used Cosby's statements from the civil case against Cosby.

[dan88911]

"he made some incriminating statements" "Justice for the rich and justice for the poor" YEP!
__________________

[Tobra]

Originally Posted by URY914

Some of those women that he raped will be waiting for him when he is released.

If he did anyone I cared about like that, he would be better off in prison.

[greglepore]

non paysite link https://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/J-100-2020mo%20-%20104821740139246918.pdf?cb=1

FWIW, I suspect that this result was expected by the trial judge ( who I knew as an atty when I practiced in that county ). A conviction was pretty much assured, Cosby has a short time to live, and spent a portion of that in prison. So maybe a somewhat "just" result given all of the circumstances with which everyone was faced after Castor's doubts. But maybe not "kosher".

[Tidybuoy]

Originally Posted by GH85Carrera

Rich man goes free........ His wife somehow stays with him through all that.

Explained.

[Joe Bob]

He's worth 1/2 billion dollars......duh.

[Baz]

[greglepore]

Originally Posted by matthewb0051

Author: Amy Lutz (FOX43), Cale Ahearn (FOX43), Travis Pittman

"The (Penn) Supreme Court agreed to review two aspects of the case that Cosby’s lawyers challenged. The first involved the judge’s decision to let prosecutors call five other accusers. The other examined Cosby’s argument that he had an agreement with a former prosecutor that he’d never be charged." Italics added to clarify state.

I'm still looking for the opinion. But I knew all along that there was an appellate issue by allowing witnesses testify about uncharged misconduct that was the exact same as the charges.

Fed Rule of Evidence 404b:
Evidence of any other crime, wrong, or act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.

Add that to Rule 403 which allows the court to exclude evidence for several reasons, including unfair prejudice and misleading the jury.

Although those are the Federal Rules, the states have near identical versions.

During the first trial the judge excluded witnesses who would testify that he had done similar acts to the charged acts.

Second trial judge allowed those alleged victims to testify, even though he was not charged with a crime against them.

Bad idea for the prosecution to introduce this evidence because it put their case at risk of appellate relief. Ditto for the judge.

They never reached this issue. Castor's promise was inducement to testify civilly without 5th. Full stop.