Same here. I am convinced, in my own judgement, that he did many if not all of the bad things he was accused of. But the prosecutors pulled a fast one here and that is definitely not permissible, and therefore it was right to throw out the conviction.
The whole point is that terms have connotations beyond their strict meanings, and getting someone off “on a technicality” is pretty universally understood to be a slimy act on the part of the defendent’s lawyer as opposed to an important defense of Constitional rights.
Personally, I like what I heard on Australian media: he got off due to a procedural violation.
I 2nd Skywatcher’s preference for, “Procedural Violation”. Best however, would be to say something more specific like, “He got off on 63rd Amendment considerations,” or “He got off due to civil rights violations by the cops”, or maybe something like, “Prosecutors in this case made public statements to the press that the defendent’s lawyers conveniently interpreted as binding commitments not to prosecute. They didn’t reach out for clarification. A little over half of the PA Supremes took their side.”
(I’m not sure that this is what happened - my general point is that “Technicality” is generally used in inappropriately vague ways. “Yeah he got off on something or other- stuff happens”, is pretty much equivalent. )
In practice, I think “Technicality” implies “Triviality” in common speech, though it shouldn’t.
It is not “slimy” to act competently in the interests of your client; that is literally the first rule of the Bar Association’s rules of professional conduct. Now, if a lawyer started tampering with the jury and bumping off witnesses, that is a little different.
I’m glad for him.
I wonder how different this thread would be if the defendant were sympathetic like a disabled vet stealing bread to feed orphans after the government stopped his benefits.
I, for one, have a hard time supporting constitutional violations based on, “He was a really guilty man.” Either the Constitution applies to all of us or it will eventually applied to none of us.
Who in this thread do you think is supporting constitutional violations?
You may have a point there, in the long run.
As far as I can tell, there is no reason to doubt that Cosby is a sick serial rapist. I was rather hoping that he would die in jail decrepit, blind and disgraced. That said, the procedural issue may be a valid one - there are rules of due process and they must be applied equally and fairly. I am content with the fact that he served essentially the minimum sentence imposed by the judge and was denied parole once. Plus, it is likely that his reputation has been damaged enough that from now on, decent folk won’t want to touch him with a ten-foot pole.
Does Cosby actually get compensation then this way, if he was wrongfully imprisoned?
Here’s the ruling:
Is this really an important defense of constitutional rights?
Maybe, in that Cosby seems to have been tricked (albeit not deliberately) into giving up his right against self-incrimination. But I’m not sure.
Kevin Steele honestly ran for D.A. on a get-Cosby platform. I found it an appalling that Steele ran on a platform implying that he would prosecute an unpopular individual, and so voted (as I rarely do) for the Republican.
Or are you claiming that Bruce Castor was dishonest?
Cosby seemed to believe (as did his lawyers) that Castor’s statement removed his ability to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege in the civil trial, which he certainly would have done otherwise.
Castor thought that Cosby did it, but there wasn’t enough evidence to get a criminal conviction. So he took an action that increased the chances for a civil judgment. Partly as a result, the victim received a $3.38 million judgment (minus attorney fees, I’m thinking).
Then a D.A. who wanted to risk a criminal trial was elected — and got a hung jury. Only when the testimony of other alleged victims was thrown in did Steele get a conviction.
A question in my mind is — is testimony concerning other alleged, but unproven, crimes, prejudicial, or more likely to lead to true justice?
Well, “Disaster” Castor never met a TV camera he didn’t like.
Like many DAs, they want wins & when Disaster Castor looked at it, it wasn’t at all a slam dunk case. Coz & Andrea Constand had a professional relationship; she worked at the university where he was a trustee. He invited her over, & then he roofied her. They had a professional relationship afterwards & she waited a year, or more, (as is her right) until she went back home to (Toronto? to) report it. Without any physical evidence a he said/she said case against “America’s Dad” didn’t look so winnable. He declined to prosecute, & part of that decision opened Coz up to testify at in the civil suit that she brought. I am neither a lawyer nor worth $9-figures & I know enough to not testify in a civil case if there are potential criminal charges against me. If I know that, I’m sure Coz was told this by his very-affordable-to-him lawyer (who is long since deceased). Disaster-boy even testified to the fact that he declined to prosecute so that Coz would be forced to testify in the civil case. The issue is that they couldn’t find this in writing. Was it only verbal? Was it just not filed properly in the DAs office & lost when the deceased lawyer’s office was closed? The promise to not prosecute was in essence a plea deal because it allowed the civil suit to go forward & at least allowed her to get some compensation if she couldn’t get justice.
This was long closed & forgotten about until the world changed, namely 1) social media &, more importantly 2) #metoo. Women started to be believed, & more women came forward. All of a sudden there were a lot of women who basically had the same story about him (& Harvey Weinstein, & others); however all of the other women who raised allegations against Coz were beyond the respective statue of limitations in their cases.
Do I think he did it? Abso-damn-lutely! Do I think he should have been prosecuted when even the then-DA testified that he wouldn’t be? No. Would current DA Steele (who made this a major campaign issue) even have been elected w/o this case? Could you find enough jurors to put out of their minds the fact that Coz said he did it to make a fair retrial? Throwing it out is correct, IMHO.
He did spend two years in prison. Not nearly enough, but it’s something.
From a legal standpoint, the argument, sadly, actually seems valid.
Haven’t really followed the case but it sounds like it. Bill Cosby was my comedy hero when I was a kid. Sounds like he is an asshole. Sigh. If anyone wants me I’ll be thinking about something else…
At the risk of being whooshed, what is the 63rd Amendment that you are referring to?
There are some interesting parallels between Cosby and O. J. Simpson. I’m reasonably certain that Simpson is a murderer, but his defense team raised enough doubt that acquittal was the only proper verdict.
So let me get this straight: Bill Cosby couldn’t be found guilty of rape because he admitted the rape?