Bill Cosby, with an estimate net worth of $350 million, has been accused of sexual assault by 60 different women. Notably, he is now also fighting the first criminal sexual assault case that has recently been filed against him. This means that Cosby is, for the first time, facing real jail time if the allegations Andrea Constand made against him were proven against him in court.
Understandably, the retired comedian would therefore not want to have the following quotes, as well as a plethora of other rather incriminating admissions, be used against him:
"Q: Did you ever give the Quaaludes to any other female but [redacted]?"
Cosby: Yes."
"Cosby: What was happening at that time was that that was — Quaaludes happen to be the drug that kids, young people were using to party with and there were times when I wanted to have them just in case.
Q. Why didn’t you ever take the Quaaludes?
A. Because I used them.
Q: For what?
A: The same as a person would say have a drink."
This evidence is great for the prosecution. Cosby basically admitted that he gave young women drugs so that he could have sex with them. Small wonder, then, that Cosby is trying to prevent the deposition from being used against him, as well as trying get the entire criminal case filed against him by the Montgomery County District Attorney's Office thrown out.
For the sake of all that is good and just, I firmly believe that Cosby is right, and this case should be dismissed immediately. Why should I take the side of Cosby, who pretty much to have sexually preyed upon impressionable young women?
Because at the end of the day, a deal is a deal.
*...by the Montgomery County District Attorney's Office.
Understandably, the retired comedian would therefore not want to have the following quotes, as well as a plethora of other rather incriminating admissions, be used against him:
"Q: Did you ever give the Quaaludes to any other female but [redacted]?"
Cosby: Yes."
"Cosby: What was happening at that time was that that was — Quaaludes happen to be the drug that kids, young people were using to party with and there were times when I wanted to have them just in case.
Q. Why didn’t you ever take the Quaaludes?
A. Because I used them.
Q: For what?
A: The same as a person would say have a drink."
This evidence is great for the prosecution. Cosby basically admitted that he gave young women drugs so that he could have sex with them. Small wonder, then, that Cosby is trying to prevent the deposition from being used against him, as well as trying get the entire criminal case filed against him by the Montgomery County District Attorney's Office thrown out.
For the sake of all that is good and just, I firmly believe that Cosby is right, and this case should be dismissed immediately. Why should I take the side of Cosby, who pretty much to have sexually preyed upon impressionable young women?
Because at the end of the day, a deal is a deal.
*...by the Montgomery County District Attorney's Office.
What deal? I'll let former Montgomery County District Attorney Bruce Castor lay out the reasons why Cosby should walk:
First, Castor establishes his credibility this way:
"Let’s be clear," Castor said to Cosby's attorney. “I’m not on your team here. I want (prosecutors) to win."
Castor's statement only helps Cosby, because whatever Castor says, he's not saying it because he is trying to help Cosby. Of course, everything Castor goes on to say is immensely helpful to Cosby's attempt to get the case dismissed:
"What I think is that Andrea Constand was inappropriately touched by Mr. Cosby,” Castor said. “I am not analyzing back in 2005 as to what I think. I am analyzing it back in 2005 as to what I can prove."
Therefore, he said, he declined to prosecute Cosby. He said that meant Cosby had to testify in the civil case Constand later brought against him, and could not claim his Fifth Amendment right. Castor said he thought getting Constand money from Cosby via a civil suit would be “the best he could do.”
Castor says he told Cosby's lawyer that if Cosby answered questions in the Constand deposition, Castor would agree not to prosecute Cosby based on the deposition.
Under questioning, Castor acknowledged that he didn't draw up a formal immunity agreement filed with a judge because, he said, Cosby was worried that would make him look bad. Also, Castor said, "It was unnecessary because I concluded there was no way the case would get any better."
He said that he made the decision as a representative of the state and that it was intended to last in perpetuity.
"For all time, yes," Castor said when pressed.
That's all that needs to be said, really.*
Castor was the Montgomery County District Attorney in 2005, and represented the same government (Pennsylvania) that is now trying to prosecute Bill Cosby for the same allegations Andrea Constand made against Cosby. Pennsylvania decided it didn't have a good criminal case against Cosby, but still wanted Constand to have a chance to go after Cosby in civil court.
So, instead of pursuing a loser criminal case and wasting resources, Pennsylvania promised Cosby that if he testifies in civil court, he will not be prosecuted, and his deposition would not be used in a criminal case against him. Cosby agreed, and proceeded to basically admit in his deposition in civil court that he drugged women for sex.
No matter that the agreement wasn't written down (although I firmly believe that Cosby's now-deceased lawyer made a serious mistake at that time, and should have written down the agreement, even if they were not going to submit it to the judge). There was simply no way that Cosby was going to admit to all this incriminating information unless both he and Pennsylvania agreed that it wasn't going to be used against him in criminal court. Luckily for Cosby, Castor was honorable enough to tell the truth, but it was a risky bet. If Castor said that he did not remember, or even denied making such a deal, then all bets are off and Cosby will have doomed himself.
For the contract nerds out there, the bargained-for exchange was:
Pennsylvania promises (gives to Cosby) to not prosecute Cosby criminally, to not prosecute Cosby for whatever he says in civil court in Constand's case.
Cosby promises (gives to Pennsylvania) damning testimony in civil court in admitting to drugging women for sex, and "justice" as desired by Pennsylvania in that Cosby is able to be prosecuted civilly.
Both sides perform their promises. Both sides shared the exact same intent. End of story. Pennsylvania should not get a second bite at the apple. Playing "gotcha!" damages justice and fundamental fairness. Cosby should walk a free man in this case.
*Castor said he relayed word to Cosby's then-attorney, Walter Phillips, that Cosby would not be charged. However, Castor said the two lawyers did not have "an agreement" that Cosby would testify in exchange for not being prosecuted. So what? Even if we don't have an "agreement" (whatever Castor now says it means), we have detrimental reliance. Bill Cosby, to his obvious detriment, relied upon Castor's promise to not prosecute. Again, end of story. Cosby should win.
AND, Pennsylvania now says that Castor tried to grant Cosby immunity, but because Castor did not comply with the law relating to immunity in Pennsylvania, Cosby was not granted immunity, and so can be prosecuted for the same case, and all his torrid admissions in his civil court deposition can be used against him.
This argument is wrong. What was given to Cosby was not immunity granted through the statute, because immunity contemplates compelled testimony and going through with filings with the judge.
Pennsylvania is also wrong in stating that "the only means available for removing an individual's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is by a grant of use immunity." The cases cited are on point in regards to immunity -- but again, it is not immunity that the parties were contemplating; in fact, the parties contemplated specifically against immunity because of the associated publicity. It was a non-immunity contract, a bargained-for exchange (or detrimental reliance on the same principles) as detailed above. Cosby was not subpoenaed, and and was not otherwise compelled to testify in civil court, at the time the promises were made to him by Pennsylvania/Castor. Therefore, it was not "immunity" as defined by the law. If Cosby loses in Pennsylvania courts, I would hope Cosby to fight the decision to prosecute all the way up to the US Supreme Court.
Finally, as one attorney claims, favoring Cosby will "open the door to extensive litigation and confusion over the existence and meaning of all manner of alleged non-prosecution agreements". First, the case cited deals with police officers making deals, not prosecutors (Castor). Second, no, we will not slide down some insane slipper slope of spurious claims; that's what post-trial motions and the PCRA are for, where prisoners with nothing better to do make repeated spurious claims, and these wild allegations are also routinely dealt with in an efficient manner. Siding with Cosby will not change the existing system either way.
First, Castor establishes his credibility this way:
"Let’s be clear," Castor said to Cosby's attorney. “I’m not on your team here. I want (prosecutors) to win."
Castor's statement only helps Cosby, because whatever Castor says, he's not saying it because he is trying to help Cosby. Of course, everything Castor goes on to say is immensely helpful to Cosby's attempt to get the case dismissed:
"What I think is that Andrea Constand was inappropriately touched by Mr. Cosby,” Castor said. “I am not analyzing back in 2005 as to what I think. I am analyzing it back in 2005 as to what I can prove."
Therefore, he said, he declined to prosecute Cosby. He said that meant Cosby had to testify in the civil case Constand later brought against him, and could not claim his Fifth Amendment right. Castor said he thought getting Constand money from Cosby via a civil suit would be “the best he could do.”
Castor says he told Cosby's lawyer that if Cosby answered questions in the Constand deposition, Castor would agree not to prosecute Cosby based on the deposition.
Under questioning, Castor acknowledged that he didn't draw up a formal immunity agreement filed with a judge because, he said, Cosby was worried that would make him look bad. Also, Castor said, "It was unnecessary because I concluded there was no way the case would get any better."
He said that he made the decision as a representative of the state and that it was intended to last in perpetuity.
"For all time, yes," Castor said when pressed.
That's all that needs to be said, really.*
Castor was the Montgomery County District Attorney in 2005, and represented the same government (Pennsylvania) that is now trying to prosecute Bill Cosby for the same allegations Andrea Constand made against Cosby. Pennsylvania decided it didn't have a good criminal case against Cosby, but still wanted Constand to have a chance to go after Cosby in civil court.
So, instead of pursuing a loser criminal case and wasting resources, Pennsylvania promised Cosby that if he testifies in civil court, he will not be prosecuted, and his deposition would not be used in a criminal case against him. Cosby agreed, and proceeded to basically admit in his deposition in civil court that he drugged women for sex.
No matter that the agreement wasn't written down (although I firmly believe that Cosby's now-deceased lawyer made a serious mistake at that time, and should have written down the agreement, even if they were not going to submit it to the judge). There was simply no way that Cosby was going to admit to all this incriminating information unless both he and Pennsylvania agreed that it wasn't going to be used against him in criminal court. Luckily for Cosby, Castor was honorable enough to tell the truth, but it was a risky bet. If Castor said that he did not remember, or even denied making such a deal, then all bets are off and Cosby will have doomed himself.
For the contract nerds out there, the bargained-for exchange was:
Pennsylvania promises (gives to Cosby) to not prosecute Cosby criminally, to not prosecute Cosby for whatever he says in civil court in Constand's case.
Cosby promises (gives to Pennsylvania) damning testimony in civil court in admitting to drugging women for sex, and "justice" as desired by Pennsylvania in that Cosby is able to be prosecuted civilly.
Both sides perform their promises. Both sides shared the exact same intent. End of story. Pennsylvania should not get a second bite at the apple. Playing "gotcha!" damages justice and fundamental fairness. Cosby should walk a free man in this case.
*Castor said he relayed word to Cosby's then-attorney, Walter Phillips, that Cosby would not be charged. However, Castor said the two lawyers did not have "an agreement" that Cosby would testify in exchange for not being prosecuted. So what? Even if we don't have an "agreement" (whatever Castor now says it means), we have detrimental reliance. Bill Cosby, to his obvious detriment, relied upon Castor's promise to not prosecute. Again, end of story. Cosby should win.
AND, Pennsylvania now says that Castor tried to grant Cosby immunity, but because Castor did not comply with the law relating to immunity in Pennsylvania, Cosby was not granted immunity, and so can be prosecuted for the same case, and all his torrid admissions in his civil court deposition can be used against him.
This argument is wrong. What was given to Cosby was not immunity granted through the statute, because immunity contemplates compelled testimony and going through with filings with the judge.
Pennsylvania is also wrong in stating that "the only means available for removing an individual's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is by a grant of use immunity." The cases cited are on point in regards to immunity -- but again, it is not immunity that the parties were contemplating; in fact, the parties contemplated specifically against immunity because of the associated publicity. It was a non-immunity contract, a bargained-for exchange (or detrimental reliance on the same principles) as detailed above. Cosby was not subpoenaed, and and was not otherwise compelled to testify in civil court, at the time the promises were made to him by Pennsylvania/Castor. Therefore, it was not "immunity" as defined by the law. If Cosby loses in Pennsylvania courts, I would hope Cosby to fight the decision to prosecute all the way up to the US Supreme Court.
Finally, as one attorney claims, favoring Cosby will "open the door to extensive litigation and confusion over the existence and meaning of all manner of alleged non-prosecution agreements". First, the case cited deals with police officers making deals, not prosecutors (Castor). Second, no, we will not slide down some insane slipper slope of spurious claims; that's what post-trial motions and the PCRA are for, where prisoners with nothing better to do make repeated spurious claims, and these wild allegations are also routinely dealt with in an efficient manner. Siding with Cosby will not change the existing system either way.
RSS Feed
