Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Pennsylvania prosecutor makes Hail Mary pass to US Supreme Court, asking for Bill Cosby to be put back in prison   (yahoo.com) divider line
    More: Followup, Supreme Court of the United States, Crime, Bill Cosby's indecent assault conviction, Jury, U.S. Supreme Court, Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, United States, Pennsylvania Supreme Court  
•       •       •

2687 clicks; posted to Main » and Politics » on 29 Nov 2021 at 10:46 PM (8 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



64 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2021-11-29 10:52:52 PM  
Cosby is upset that somebody used sneaky tactics to get him to do something he didn't want to do.
 
2021-11-29 11:00:07 PM  
Put the old broad who lied on Emmett Till in prison first.
 
2021-11-29 11:00:22 PM  
It's not going to work, they used mushmouth to make the arguments to the court.

2.bp.blogspot.comView Full Size
 
2021-11-29 11:04:11 PM  
i2.wp.comView Full Size
 
2021-11-29 11:08:33 PM  
They won't touch that.
 
2021-11-29 11:15:09 PM  
As much as I dislike the creepy old weirdo, he seems to have a solid case.  I would be surprised if SCOTUS went anywhere near it.
 
2021-11-29 11:20:27 PM  
Don't elections have consequences? Why would the Supreme Court overturn this? I feel like they could enjoy some stigginit.
 
2021-11-29 11:22:41 PM  
I'm not in favor of the death penalty but I do hope old rapey Cos can shuffle off the mortal coil posthaste.

I think the prosecutor did a normal good job, which with a normal defendant would have been fine, but Cosby has money for the good lawyers so they'll find every technicality. Dude admitted to a bunch of rapes. He is a serial rapist. It's lucky his "Spanish fly" didn't accidentally kill anyone (at least that we know) since he was also drugging people.

I can't think of things bad enough to say about Cosby that are worse than the facts.
 
2021-11-29 11:25:08 PM  
The Cosby will likely be going back to prison.

If Ghislane somehow doesn't get corona virus twice to the back of the head, while the gaurds are napping and the cameras are "malfunctioning", she is going to have to give up some celebs who are old and on the outs.  What better sacrifice than Cosby?  He doesn't have any influence anymore.  And he is old.  The ideal sacrifice to keep the populace appeased, and she won't have to rat out a real big cheese that could get her two rounds of corona virus to the back of the head.  All she has to do is keep her mouth shut on the big cheeses, and she will likely live long enough to get cosby back in prison.
 
2021-11-29 11:28:32 PM  
stop trying to cheer me up, subby
 
2021-11-29 11:30:09 PM  
external-content.duckduckgo.comView Full Size
 
2021-11-29 11:39:29 PM  

AmbassadorBooze: The Cosby will likely be going back to prison.

If Ghislane somehow doesn't get corona virus twice to the back of the head, while the gaurds are napping and the cameras are "malfunctioning", she is going to have to give up some celebs who are old and on the outs.  What better sacrifice than Cosby?  He doesn't have any influence anymore.  And he is old.  The ideal sacrifice to keep the populace appeased, and she won't have to rat out a real big cheese that could get her two rounds of corona virus to the back of the head.  All she has to do is keep her mouth shut on the big cheeses, and she will likely live long enough to get cosby back in prison.


No Gitmo?
 
2021-11-29 11:41:57 PM  

Exile On Beale Street: AmbassadorBooze: The Cosby will likely be going back to prison.

If Ghislane somehow doesn't get corona virus twice to the back of the head, while the gaurds are napping and the cameras are "malfunctioning", she is going to have to give up some celebs who are old and on the outs.  What better sacrifice than Cosby?  He doesn't have any influence anymore.  And he is old.  The ideal sacrifice to keep the populace appeased, and she won't have to rat out a real big cheese that could get her two rounds of corona virus to the back of the head.  All she has to do is keep her mouth shut on the big cheeses, and she will likely live long enough to get cosby back in prison.

No Gitmo?


Ideally, sure.  But the headline referenced prison.  He can't be "put back" in gitmo either, since it would be his first time.
 
2021-11-29 11:47:42 PM  
Prosecutors, you farked up. If that was your only evidence, you should have never brought it to trial.

SCOTUS isn't going to invalidate the concept of immunity in exchange for cooperation just because you farked up.
 
2021-11-29 11:52:41 PM  
The Man is always keeping them down. Bummer.
 
2021-11-29 11:53:06 PM  

stoli n coke: Prosecutors, you farked up. If that was your only evidence, you should have never brought it to trial.

SCOTUS isn't going to invalidate the concept of immunity in exchange for cooperation just because you farked up.


Yep.

Some Farkers are getting frighteningly attached to giving prosecutors more freedom from consequences lately.
 
2021-11-29 11:55:54 PM  
William Roper: "So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!"
Sir Thomas More: "Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?"
William Roper: "Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!"
Sir Thomas More: "Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!"
 
2021-11-30 12:02:50 AM  

Boojum2k: stoli n coke: Prosecutors, you farked up. If that was your only evidence, you should have never brought it to trial.

SCOTUS isn't going to invalidate the concept of immunity in exchange for cooperation just because you farked up.

Yep.

Some Farkers are getting frighteningly attached to giving prosecutors more freedom from consequences lately.


It's not as cut and dry as most make it out to be.  The supposed immunity agreement was never put into writing and it was only corroborated by one party more than 10 years later, the former prosecutor who is shady as hell and had a vested interest in Cosby not getting prosecuted.  The trial judge didn't buy the argument that there was ever an agreement, the statements of the former prosecutor at the time never indicated an agreement, and Cosby is damn lucky that the PA Supreme Court gave him the benefit of the doubt.
 
2021-11-30 12:05:14 AM  

stoli n coke: Prosecutors, you farked up. If that was your only evidence, you should have never brought it to trial.

SCOTUS isn't going to invalidate the concept of immunity in exchange for cooperation just because you farked up.


A former prosecutor claims, without evidence, to have made a pinky promise to a dead man.  There isn't a single line of documentation of this promise.  The deposition had objections by Cosby's lawyers against self incrimination by Cosby; if they had immunity, those objections would have been groundless.

Under the penn. supreme court ruling, any former prosecutor can grant what is almost a retroactive pardon for any action done prior to them being in office.  They just need to say they made a secret pinky promise not to prosecute.  They didn't even have to get anything in return, document it, mention it to anyone.  The persin to whom the promise was made doesn't even have to testify.

What more, the criminal just has to believe in it.  Even if the pinky promise is a lie and never happened.  The criminal doesn't even have to testify they believed in it; Cosby never has testified to that effect.
 
2021-11-30 12:08:54 AM  
The practice of giving "legal immunity" itself should be reviewed by the SCOTUS; but it is an unjust means to an unfairly applied (as it is based upon wealth) end-that is sometimes called "justice". The idea of not prosecuting a murderer to get testimony against another more prolific murderer, is disgusting but, understandable- the motivation being to remove the more dangerous threat to society.

In the Cosby case there was no public benefit sought by the prosecutors  statement (made in a press release, not in a court) that they wouldn't prosecute. Such a statement can only be reasonably applied to the past or present actions of an actor (you can't grant immunity for a future rape for example) and since Cosby made the incriminating statements in depositions that occurred after the non-prosecution statement, the statements should be admissible in a future criminal prosecution. Also the statements were made in a civil trial, which then would not invoke any kind of double-jeopardy or other legal privilege's in a criminal trial.

IMHO, he should be thrown back into a (real) prison and be made to serve his maximum term (because he is a sneaky rapist of the worst kind-the kind that have money, fame and good looks-who, despite having every advantage, still seek to victimize others with impunity)
 
2021-11-30 12:14:47 AM  
What the two apologists for the prosecutor error have left out is that the immunity was granted in order to be able to compel Cosby to testify in his civil trial.

Compelling that testimony and then using it against him in a criminal case violates the Fifth amendment.

Stop letting prosecutors make end runs around constitutional rights.
 
2021-11-30 12:23:39 AM  
I'm worried about the precedent this could create. I think he deserves to be in prison but this could be abused. We really need to be careful to make laws that are knee jerk reactions to situations. Sometimes it is warranted. But other times it can lead to serious issues.
 
2021-11-30 12:27:37 AM  
It's like school on Thanksgiving: no class.
 
2021-11-30 12:48:52 AM  
"We're not going to prosecute, therefore you can't invoke the 5th in the civil trial."
"I'm the new prosecutor. Screw that assurance, I'm going to use your testimony against you."

There's a concept in law called "detrimental reliance" that covers this. Cosby is scum, but if you made a promise and he relied on that promise to his detriment, you should be made to honor it.
 
2021-11-30 1:13:20 AM  
Nope. He's already been released due to the 5th Amendment violations by the prosecutors. And I'm pretty sure that imprisoning someone for a crime, then releasing them, then re-imprisoning them for that same crime, is also unconstitutional.

The fact that he's a serial rapist who deserves to die in prison is irrelevant.
 
2021-11-30 1:15:23 AM  
i'm glad my mom didn't live long enough to see what he did.
 
2021-11-30 1:57:35 AM  

trippdogg: As much as I dislike the creepy old weirdo, he seems to have a solid case.  I would be surprised if SCOTUS went anywhere near it.


That all depends on what GQP wants them to do....
 
2021-11-30 2:00:00 AM  

adamatari: I think the prosecutor did a normal good job, which with a normal defendant would have been fine, but Cosby has money for the good lawyers so they'll find every technicality.


The prosecutor did not do a good job, and this isn't about Cosby being wealthy. It's about due process. The prosecutor issued a statement saying they were not going to file charges against Cosby in exchange for him not pleading the Fifth. Then a later prosecutor turned around and filed charges anyway.

That violated Cosby's Fifth Amendment rights, and it was a huge violation of due process. (Side note: The prosecutor in Kyle Rittenhouse's case did the same thing when he stated, in court and before the jury, that they should find it suspicious that Rittenhouse didn't speak about the case between his arrest and the trial. Anyone who thinks Judge Schroeder overreacted and was biased in Rittenhouse's favor should keep in mind he would have been well within his authority to dismiss with prejudice.)

Anyway, Cosby's lawyer filed an appeal and stated as much. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed and overturned the conviction. The ruling stated the remedy was rare and severe because the due process violation was rare and severe:

"[W]e hold that, when a prosecutor makes an unconditional promise of non-prosecution, and when the defendant relies upon that guarantee to the detriment of his constitutional right not to testify, the principle of fundamental fairness that undergirds due process of law in our criminal justice system demands that the promise be enforced.  ...The impact of the due process violation here is vast. The remedy must match that impact. ... He must be discharged, and any future prosecution on these particular charges must be barred. We do not dispute that this remedy is both severe and rare. But it is warranted here, indeed compelled."

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/bill-cosby-released-due-process-1234976008/

They can't try him again on the same charges; you don't get a do-over with misconduct like this. Constitutional rights are kind of important; you don't shred them when it happens to be a high-profile trial or particularly egregious charges.

Maybe the previous prosecutor shouldn't have issued the promise not to prosecute; I'm not sure what value Cosby's testimony would have had if there was to be no trial.

Just goes to show, again, that you can't expect someone to be thrown in prison due to public outrage. It looks to me as like prosecutors in both cases either caved in under pressure or wanted to boost their careers with a high-profile win.
 
2021-11-30 2:10:13 AM  

Demonsdemon: The practice of giving "legal immunity" itself should be reviewed by the SCOTUS; but it is an unjust means to an unfairly applied (as it is based upon wealth) end-that is sometimes called "justice". The idea of not prosecuting a murderer to get testimony against another more prolific murderer, is disgusting but, understandable- the motivation being to remove the more dangerous threat to society.

In the Cosby case there was no public benefit sought by the prosecutors  statement (made in a press release, not in a court) that they wouldn't prosecute. Such a statement can only be reasonably applied to the past or present actions of an actor (you can't grant immunity for a future rape for example) and since Cosby made the incriminating statements in depositions that occurred after the non-prosecution statement, the statements should be admissible in a future criminal prosecution. Also the statements were made in a civil trial, which then would not invoke any kind of double-jeopardy or other legal privilege's in a criminal trial.

IMHO, he should be thrown back into a (real) prison and be made to serve his maximum term (because he is a sneaky rapist of the worst kind-the kind that have money, fame and good looks-who, despite having every advantage, still seek to victimize others with impunity)


You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but a prosecutorial promise made in a press release is legally binding. If the prosecutor lied, and Cosby testified only because he trusted the prosecutor, then his testimony was inadmissible. That's precisely how the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled. You don't get to cut corners just because there's public outrage over the trial, and you don't get a do-over if you don't like the verdict. The prosecutor screwed up bigly.
 
2021-11-30 2:34:55 AM  

King Something: Nope. He's already been released due to the 5th Amendment violations by the prosecutors. And I'm pretty sure that imprisoning someone for a crime, then releasing them, then re-imprisoning them for that same crime, is also unconstitutional.

The fact that he's a serial rapist who deserves to die in prison is irrelevant.


sigh, you are right
 
2021-11-30 3:18:31 AM  

jjorsett: "We're not going to prosecute, therefore you can't invoke the 5th in the civil trial."
"I'm the new prosecutor. Screw that assurance, I'm going to use your testimony against you."

There's a concept in law called "detrimental reliance" that covers this. Cosby is scum, but if you made a promise and he relied on that promise to his detriment, you should be made to honor it.


Is that like estoppel?
 
2021-11-30 3:25:12 AM  

Pert: jjorsett: "We're not going to prosecute, therefore you can't invoke the 5th in the civil trial."
"I'm the new prosecutor. Screw that assurance, I'm going to use your testimony against you."

There's a concept in law called "detrimental reliance" that covers this. Cosby is scum, but if you made a promise and he relied on that promise to his detriment, you should be made to honor it.

Is that like estoppel?


I think in this case it was OK for the new prosecution to lay the charges the previous DA didn't, the problem is that he used depositions given under the assurance they couldn't be used against the defendant. If he had other evidence it would probably be fine, but in another article the prosecuting attorney was all "Hey, let's just try him again without this" and the Supreme Court basically told him he had his chance and f'd it up.
 
2021-11-30 3:28:28 AM  
That would set a scary precedent, if the court sent him back to prison. That's how you get political prisoners. Not saying Cosby is innocent.
 
2021-11-30 3:30:14 AM  
My brain still cannot process the fact that Bill Cosby is a serial rapist, who drugged dozens of women, then raped them.  Not like, "Oh Mr Cosby used his influence inappropriately in the '80s" or "it was a different time then", or "he's a big hugger because he's Italian."  Drugged and raped dozens of women.  WTF.
 
2021-11-30 3:31:29 AM  

Mithraic_bullshiat: That would set a scary precedent, if the court sent him back to prison. That's how you get political prisoners. Not saying Cosby is innocent.


Innocent and not guilty are not the same thing.  Cosby did the deed.  He got out of jail because the prosecutors farked up the evidence.
 
2021-11-30 3:54:50 AM  

foo monkey: Mithraic_bullshiat: That would set a scary precedent, if the court sent him back to prison. That's how you get political prisoners. Not saying Cosby is innocent.

Innocent and not guilty are not the same thing.  Cosby did the deed.  He got out of jail because the prosecutors farked up the evidence.


"I'm" not saying he's innocent. Just trying to clarify that, though in my heart of hearts think he should be strung on a clothesline by his balls*, changing the legal principle that freed him would not be good.

I can't argue law, btw, I'm a massage therapist. I can barely form words.

*the punishment deemed fit for rapists by Diamanda Galas
 
2021-11-30 4:04:15 AM  

Boojum2k: What the two apologists for the prosecutor error have left out is that the immunity was granted in order to be able to compel Cosby to testify in his civil trial.

Compelling that testimony and then using it against him in a criminal case violates the Fifth amendment.

Stop letting prosecutors make end runs around constitutional rights.


I really wish Cosby would rot in prison, but this was such an egregious violation of his 5th amendment rights that it's absolutely insane to me he was in prison as long as he was.

Just like how if a cop doesn't read a suspect his miranda rights and gets him to confess, you can't use the confession. Only in this case imagine the cop is telling the suspect, "Don't worry this is just between you and me, it can't possibly be used in court, I promise."
 
2021-11-30 7:50:40 AM  

Gooch: Put the old broad who lied on Emmett Till in prison first.


All of the Groveland Four are dead but the lying complainant is still alive...
 
2021-11-30 7:52:50 AM  

edmo: They won't touch that.


Correct. The immunity given might have been unconventional, but the person who was authorized to give it and did so is alive and has specifically stated what was meant and what was done. There is nothing novel or new about this case other than a reminder to get immunity agreements in writing.
 
2021-11-30 8:03:34 AM  

Demonsdemon: Also the statements were made in a civil trial, which then would not invoke any kind of double-jeopardy or other legal privilege's in a criminal trial.


You are amazingly mistaken.

In the criminal investigation, Cosby has the right to remain silent. He cannot be compelled to answer any questions. This right extends to any legal deposition, so for the civil suit filed by his accuser he could have simple pleaded the 5th and refused to answer any questions because his answers could incriminate him and would be open for use in criminal prosecution.

The only way you can force someone to testify in a legal deposition in those circumstances is to give them immunity. Once criminal immunity is given, a person can be forced to answer questions in a civil deposition under penalty of contempt if they refuse.

Cosby was OBLIGATED to answer questions in the deposition because he was given criminal immunity. His answers cannot be used against him because that's the deal.
 
2021-11-30 8:05:55 AM  

King Something: And I'm pretty sure that imprisoning someone for a crime, then releasing them, then re-imprisoning them for that same crime, is also unconstitutional.


Not if a conviction is reinstated by an appeal. My cousin was freed after 28 years when he was ordered to be given a new trial. A year later, the court of appeals reinstated the original conviction and threw him back in prison.
 
2021-11-30 8:12:01 AM  

dark brew: it was only corroborated by one party more than 10 years later, the former prosecutor who is shady as hell and had a vested interest in Cosby not getting prosecuted


What interest was that?

Do you have any specific, articulate reason you can state for why the former prosecutor's contemporary corroboration of the immunity is false? Any reason OTHER THAN you personally don't like it?
 
2021-11-30 8:24:16 AM  

Sensei Can You See: You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but a prosecutorial promise made in a press release is legally binding. If the prosecutor lied, and Cosby testified only because he trusted the prosecutor, then his testimony was inadmissible. That's precisely how the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled. You don't get to cut corners just because there's public outrage over the trial, and you don't get a do-over if you don't like the verdict. The prosecutor screwed up bigly.


If anything, this made a clearly visible legal loophole, like an offshore bank account. When the shiat hits the fan, get sued in civil court first, then cut a deal to testify; get out of jail free.

You are correct, it all seems legal. Rich guy stays out of jail and there doesn't seem to be much fallout for anyone else involved.
 
2021-11-30 8:32:28 AM  

transporter_ii: get sued in civil court first


The criminal investigation came first and was not prosecuted because the case was questionable.
 
2021-11-30 9:33:12 AM  

JonPace: I really wish Cosby would rot in prison, but this was such an egregious violation of his 5th amendment rights that it's absolutely insane to me he was in prison as long as he was.


This is a guy getting top shelf legal advice. A prosecutor made a statement in a completely non binding forum. I'm not a lawyer but I'm thinking that your lawyer will always advise you to not confess to a crime unless its part of a plea agreement.

Cosby made a calculated decision to try to save money in the civil suit  His rights weren't violated, he rolled the dice. Knowingly.
 
2021-11-30 11:43:36 AM  

Sensei Can You See: adamatari: I think the prosecutor did a normal good job, which with a normal defendant would have been fine, but Cosby has money for the good lawyers so they'll find every technicality.

The prosecutor did not do a good job, and this isn't about Cosby being wealthy. It's about due process. The prosecutor issued a statement saying they were not going to file charges against Cosby in exchange for him not pleading the Fifth. Then a later prosecutor turned around and filed charges anyway.

The press release DID NOT PROMISE NOT TO PROSECUTE.It stated they did not have evidence to prosecute, and that they "will reconsider this decision should the need arise".  THE PRESS RELEASE LITERALLY PROMISED IT WAS NOT A PROMISE NOT TO PROSECUTE.They stated they did not currently have evidence to prosecute, and that should more evidence arrive, they may reconsider.  This is NOT a promise not to prosecute, and pretending it is is frankly stupid.The "evidence" that there was a non-prosecution promise consists of 0 documentation, 0 testimony by Cosby, a deposition where Cosby's lawyers invoked non-self-incrimination objections (!), and a politician-prosecutor who first mentioned such an agreement 10 years after it was made after a political rival started prosecuting Cosby.  No notes that it happened.  No mention of it to any other living soul, including to any coworkers.The supreme court imputed that Cosby *thought* he had immunity, without even requiring Cosby testify to that fact.
 
2021-11-30 11:47:32 AM  

mrmopar5287: dark brew: it was only corroborated by one party more than 10 years later, the former prosecutor who is shady as hell and had a vested interest in Cosby not getting prosecuted

What interest was that?

Do you have any specific, articulate reason you can state for why the former prosecutor's contemporary corroboration of the immunity is false? Any reason OTHER THAN you personally don't like it?


Zero corroboration of the claim.  It was apparently a secret between that prosecutor and a dead lawyer.  Not one note, not one document, not one mention to coworkers.

Inconsistent with known facts. The public statements made at the time disagree with a promise not to prosecute, because they mention changing their mind and prosecuting if new evidence comes to light.  Which would be nonsense if there was a promise not to prosecute.

Motivation.  By making such a claim, he undermines a political rival.

Due process.  A judge looked at the total evidence, and found the former prosecutor's position non-credible.
 
2021-11-30 12:01:15 PM  
Oh, and of course, in Penn. law, DAs do not have the power to grant immunity.

They can only do so if they bring the deal to a Judge.  The DA did not do so, which is something you'd think he'd do if he was promising immunity.

So a former DA (a) has no documentation that promised immunity, (b) never told anyone he granted immunity, (c) does not have the power to grant immunity without a judge agreeing, (d) only brought up the fact he granted immunity 10 years later when a political rival would be hurt by it.

What we have is the supreme court imputing that Cosby's lawyers where ignorant of the law regarding immunity, convinced Cosby that he was immune to prosecution from a letter that stated "we may revisit this" and "we do not have sufficient evidence" was a blanket immunity guarantee, Cosby believed them, Cosby then gave a deposition (during which the lawyers objected on self-incrimination grounds to a number of lines of questions) believing this, and then the supreme court proceeded to retroactively grant Cosby immunity based off his imputed belief he had immunity.
 
2021-11-30 12:36:42 PM  

NotAYakk: The public statements made at the time disagree with a promise not to prosecute, because they mention changing their mind and prosecuting if new evidence comes to light. Which would be nonsense if there was a promise not to prosecute.


The promise was that the civil deposition would not be used as evidence. Cosby was given testimonial immunity just the same as anyone else: their testimony cannot be used against them, but if other evidence comes to light it could be used.
 
2021-11-30 12:38:07 PM  

NotAYakk: a blanket immunity guarantee


It was never a blanket immunity agreement. It was testimonial immunity.
 
Displayed 50 of 64 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.