Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I have always loved Cosby like a rapey black father.Usually when 30-40 people accuse you of the same crime, you get charged with something, even if you are a beloved, black, father figure.
It's fairly unbelievable that Cosby is still walking around free. Usually when 30-40 people accuse you of the same crime, you get charged with something...
The state Supreme Court looked at two parts of the case that Cosby's attorneys had challenged in an appeal last year: the judge's decision to allow all five accusers to be called by prosecutors and an agreement that Cosby had with a former prosecutor that he would never be charged.
Whichever prosecutor made an agreement with BC that he would never be charged should be disbarred.
Bill Cosby's conviction vacated by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
My bias is that Mr. Cosby clearly drugged multiple women and sexually assaulted them over many years. Whichever prosecutor made an agreement with BC that he would never be charged should be disbarred. I'm not sure how that's even legal or can be applied to all future prosecutors but I'm not a lawyer either.
This conviction being vacated on the surface seems to be a disservice to the women he assaulted.
I view this as a huge indictment of Bruce Castor (the former prosecutor). Why the hell was he even involved in the civil suit? That looks dirty as hell. And why offer any kind of deal? The civil plaintiffs can compel Cosby's testimony. He can plead the Fifth, but unlike in a criminal case, he will do it in the presence of the jury, and the jury is allowed to infer guilt from his plea of the Fifth Amendment privilege. I smell something fishy. Was Castor getting a kickback from the civil plaintiff's lawyer to make his job easier?
I'm disgusted by this, because I think he was clearly guilty. However, I'm having a hard time disagreeing with the ruling - at least if it actually is as the article says. (I haven't read the opinion.)
If the prosecution agrees not to charge him in exchange for his testimony and then breaches the agreement and charges him based on the testimony he submitted under the agreement, that seems pretty unfair, because you're basically tricking a defendant into waiving his right against self-incrimination. Let's put it this way. If it violates due process for police to say nothing (not read him his rights) and let the accused admit to his crime, then it certainly should violate due process to affirmatively induce the accused to admit to his crime as part of a deal not to charge him and then bail on the agreement. That's very sleazy. I understand that it was a different prosecutor, but the prosecutor doesn't represent himself. He represents the state, and the state is bound by him, even if there's a change in the personnel.
I view this as a huge indictment of Bruce Castor (the former prosecutor). Why the hell was he even involved in the civil suit? That looks dirty as hell. And why offer any kind of deal? The civil plaintiffs can compel Cosby's testimony. He can plead the Fifth, but unlike in a criminal case, he will do it in the presence of the jury, and the jury is allowed to infer guilt from his plea of the Fifth Amendment privilege. I smell something fishy. Was Castor getting a kickback from the civil plaintiff's lawyer to make his job easier?
While Cosby can't be retried against Andrea Constand, can't he be tried for assaulting any number of the other women who have claimed it?