Yes, that’s the technicality he was released under.
Are you under the impression that “technicality” is a synonym for “triviality?”
In my experience, it tends to be used in the sense “he’s guilty but the crooked court system let him off.”
The supreme law of the land is never a technicality, especially when it was the misconduct of the prosecutor that infringed the Constitution. Misconduct by a prosecutor is not a “technicality”.
I’m curious what definition of “technicality” people are using, if misconduct by the district attorney that breached one’s rights under the United States Constitution is just a “technicality”.
And the Supreme Court of the state has held that they were wrong to allow it. A potentially accused person is allowed to rely on statements by the district attorney, assuring him that he will not be prosecuted. The state is not allowed to offer that assurance, and then “gotcha - you didn’t get it in writing!”
As I’ve said he should have never have been convicted in the first place. He was clearly railroaded, and now justice is done.
At least is not as egregious a conviction as Cardinal Pells. Right @Princhester .
It certainly seems correct that he was released, but to describe that as “justice” seems like the wrong word. To me, justice means that people who are guilty are punished, and people who are innocent are exonerated. He wasn’t released because he’s innocent. He got away with lighter punishment for his crimes because a prosecutor did something dishonest and wrong, and it was necessary to release him for the greater overriding cause of protecting everyone’s Constitutional rights.
It is not clear that he was railroaded.
Of course it is. It’s also bad, and a valid reason for overturning a conviction.
Again, “technicality” does not mean “triviality.” Cosby is out of jail because he’s “technically” innocent. Morally and factually, he’s one of the worst sexual predators in the last century. But we can’t put him in prison, because of a technical detail in the process of his prosecution.
If you don’t like “technicality,” what term do you propose for a situation where a clearly guilty person is granted their freedom because of errors in the process of trying him?
He is innocent until proven guilty, by a court that properly applies the Constitution. The conviction has been set aside because the trial court failed in that constitutional duty. He is therefore innocent.
Or is the presumption of innocence another of those pesky “technicalities” that get in the way of justice?
Unless you’re claiming he never did it, that’s bullshit. The problem is the prosecutor was a dishonest SOB.
Now there’s a technicality. Of course I realize that in a technical legal sense he is innocent.
So you are saying that the presumption of innocence is a technicality?
Again, I’m curious what definition of “technicality” people are using?
Hopefully he’s prosecuted again for his many other crimes, and hopefully his victims sue him for every penny of his worth.
Are you saying that everyone who cannot be proven guilty is therefore actually innocent?
I think he’s “not guilty”. Innocence implies factual innocence in my book, and he does not appear to be factually innocent.
On the question of what is a technicality, I agree with Miller – it’s when a factually guilty person walks free because of some problem in the procedure – wasn’t read their rights, some issue with evidence procedure or something.
They couldn’t prove the case without these other so called witnesses saying he did the same thing to them.
You really think he would have been convicted if they had not been allowed to testify?
Courts reached a decision that I dislike and you are worse than Hitler/Pol Pot/Stalin for pointing out that I am wrong
Modhat: This is a bit much. There is a perfectly fine Pit thread on the subject if you want to post like this. Head over to there: