Jump to content

Matt Lauer/Greg Zaun - when will this end??


kelownabomberfan
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • 1 month later...
  • 2 months later...
  • 2 months later...
  • 2 months later...
2 hours ago, iHeart said:

I know there was a separate thread for this but I can't find it...besides I think it's locked

 

Proving, once again, how screwed up the American legal system is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before people react to Cosby without reading the story, legally it makes sense. In 2005 prosecutors could have charged him criminally, but questioned whether they had a reasonable likelihood of conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. They determined that they did not, so they chose not to charge him. This was a tactic to expose him in a civil suit. If he was charged criminally he could plead the fifth (refuse to testify) in the civil case on the grounds that it could incriminate him criminally. Without the threat of criminal prosecution, he could not exercise his right to plead the fifth as he did not face that legal jeopardy, and refusing to testify in the civil case in that instance would be considered contempt of court and he could be jailed for keeping silent. So he was forced to the stand for a deposition with a lower burden of proof and give evidence against himself. It was that deposition’s evidence that was unsealed in 2014 and then used to justify the criminal charges being laid. Two trials and one hung jury later, Cosby was convicted. So the court is saying you can’t force someone to testify against their right to silence by avoiding criminal charges, and then use that testimony to engage in criminal charges. Procedural gobbledegook, but actually protects people from forced self-incrimination criminally. 

Edited by TrueBlue4ever
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, TrueBlue4ever said:

Before people react to Cosby without reading the story, legally it makes sense. In 2005 prosecutors could have charged him criminally, but questioned whether they had a reasonable likelihood of conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. They determined that they did not, so they chose not to charge him. This was a tactic to expose him in a civil suit. If he was charged criminally he could plead the fifth (refuse to testify) in the civil case on the grounds that it could incriminate him criminally. Without the threat of criminal prosecution, he could not exercise his right to plead the fifth as he did not face that legal jeopardy, and refusing to testify in the civil case in that instance would be considered contempt of court and he could be jailed for keeping silent. So he was forced to the stand for a deposition with a lower burden of proof and give evidence against himself. It was that deposition’s evidence that was unsealed in 2014 and then used to justify the criminal charges being laid. Two trials and one hung jury later, Cosby was convicted. So the court is saying you can’t force someone to testify against their right to silence by avoiding criminal charges, and then use that testimony to engage in criminal charges. Procedural gobbledegook, but actually protects people from forced self-incrimination criminally. 

But the Pennsylvania Supreme Court determined Wednesday that Cosby’s conviction in a second trial ― after the first ended in a hung jury ― was invalid. The court found that Montgomery County District Attorney Kevin Steele, who initiated Cosby’s arrest, was obligated to stand by a promise his predecessor had made not to charge Cosby, though there is no evidence that promise was ever put in writing, The Associated Press reported. 

The predecessor who made that promise to Cosby was Bruce Castor, who defended former President Donald Trump ― another man with dozens of sexual misconduct allegations against him ― in his second impeachment trial. 

Money talked and a predator walked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s not just that a promise was walked back though. That promise crashed a legal dynamic where Cosby was forced to answer civilly for a claim without Fifth Amendment protection , which he would have had if criminal charges existed. Then they used the evidence from that hearing as a basis for laying criminal charges and as evidence against him criminally later. Kind of an entrapment scenario - he is forced to do something under threat of jail if he does not comply, then what he does is held against him as a way to get him into jail. The facts are abhorrent and I make no excuses for the man, but everyone is entitled to due process and he was not really given that, as I understand it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...