The technical definition of technical, or the non-technical definition of technical?
From my quick on my phone reading, it looks like the Court never reached that issue. That was the one I was hoping for.
So misconduct by a prosecutor, breaching the Constitution of the United States, is just a technicality?
How do you define “factually guilty”, then, if not by the law set out by the Constitution and the code of criminal procedure? What definition are you using to say factually guilty, even if the courts have found not guilty?
“Guilty” is a legal determination. Someone can kill another person and be not guilty of murder. The term “guilty” does not have any meaning except in the context of the criminal law law.
Suppose a confession is excluded under the laws of evidence, and the accused is acquitted. Is that a technicality? What if the confession was obtained by the police beating the accused in the back rooms until he confessed. Would that exclusion by a “technicality”?
Surely they didn’t try him on every charge at once?
As I understand it, this sort of thing is exactly why they may charge someone with multiple crimes, but only try them for one- if they fail or mess up, they can always retry on the other crimes.
IIRC, all of the other charges are well past the statute of limitations. This one was filed with only days left. There is nothing left to charge him with.
Same transaction or a series of related offences will usually attract double jeopardy.
The remedy here is to go to SCOTUS as this most certainly raises a Federal question.
Petition for Certiorari to SCOTUS is their only remedy AFAIK.
As far as I can see, these are all state law issues. I don’t see any federal issue for the state to appeal.
Not necessarily. If there are parallel provisions for right to silence under the state constitution, and it’s a finding under state law that a potentially accused person can rely on the oral assurances of a state prosecutor, then any federal issue is moot.
The Supreme Court of the United States can’t overturn the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania if it’s ruled that his rights under the state constitution were violated, and that would make the federal issues moot.
I’ve not read the decision in full, but I did see references to “our constitutions” which suggests to me that they were making concurrent findings under the state and federal constitutions.
ETA: Just saw @Northern_Piper reply to my question.
There are guilty and not guilty in courts of law. There is factually guilty and factually innocent out here in the real world.
If someone confesses after being beaten and is convicted based on that evidence, it’s difficult or impossible to tell if someone is factually innocent. However, if someone incriminates himself after getting some verbal agreement from the prosecutor, or before being read their rights, it can be easier to tell.
You can’t always tell if someone is factually guilty or not – cops plant evidence and coerce confessions. Sometimes you can tell, and if they get out because a cop or prosecutor did something wrong, I would call that being released on a technicality.
In this case, I’m nearly positive that Cosby is factually guilty – that is, he actually drugged and raped those women. I’m fine with him being released on a technicality, because the proper operation of the law and our rights is more important than locking up Cosby.
The majority does refer to the Fifth and 14th Amendments, suggesting that they are applying those amendments, but I assume that they also applied their own state guarantees. As I said, I’ve not read the full decision.
I have little sympathy for Crosby, however:
Justice David Wecht, writing for a split court, said Cosby had relied on the former district attorney’s decision not to charge him when the comedian gave his potentially incriminating testimony in Constand’s civil case…“District attorneys can’t change it up simply because of their political motivation.,” she said, adding Cosby remains in excellent health, apart from being legally blind.
So yeah, like in another high profile case, the office of the DA can not make a promise, only to have the next office holder abjure it so as he can make headlines and advance his political career.
Perhaps the promise should not have been made, but a deal is a deal. Otherwise any faith in the deals is gone.
Yep.
Guilty or not? Well, we know he is scum. That is a fact. Is that not enough?
The courts have continually referred to the presumption of innocence as a fundamental right. The right to remain silent as a fundamental right. Due process as a fundamental right.
These rights are fundamental because they protect each and every one of us from the misuse of state power.
But, if there’s a result we don’t like, one that involves misconduct by the state, those rights are no longer fundamental. They’re just technicalities which have gotten in the way of “justice”.
A result that is in breach of the supreme law of the land, triggered by misconduct by state officials, is not “justice.”
Thanks for your reply on the Federal/State law issue above.
The majority discussion seems to be mostly predicated on the US Constitution, though as I am familiar with that and not the Pennsylvania constitution, I cannot say with certainty either way.
In the opinion (linked below) the certainly discuss the Federal Constitution and SCOTUS jurisprudence in some detail.
So, then, what is your definition of “got off on a technicality”?
I reject the concept entirely.
There is none. Legally. Things happen due to substantive law or procedure. They don’t happen on “technicalities”.
I dispute that there is no saying “to get released on a technicality.”
It’s common parlance, even if lawyers reject it.
@Northern_Piper @UltraVires e the Federal and State law question, they seem have considered Due Process under both the XIV Amendment and the equivalent provision of the Pennsylvania constitution, (pg 58 of the judgement) but the issue of incrimination seems to be a wholly V Amendment question, and from the excerpts of the record of the Courts below, it seems it always was considered by all sides to be.