# Legal Experts: Weigh in on the Cosby Criminal Case **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 2, 2016, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-experts-weigh-in-on-the-cosby-criminal-case/744975 "2016-02-02T18:50:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2016, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-experts-weigh-in-on-the-cosby-criminal-case/744975/1 "2016-02-02T18:50:28Z")
Apparently the key issue in the Cosby criminal case at this early point is whether he was granted immunity from prosecution in exchange for being willing to testify in the civil suit against him. [Former DA says Bill Cosby is shielded from prosecution](http://www.sfchronicle.com/news/crime/article/Cosby-due-in-court-as-lawyers-push-to-get-charges-6799972.php) > [@](#): > > NORRISTOWN, Pa. (AP) — The former district attorney who declined a decade ago to bring sex-crime charges against Bill Cosby testified Tuesday that he believes his decision is binding on his successors and forever closes the door on prosecuting the comedian. > > Former Montgomery County District Attorney Bruce Castor took the stand as part of a bid by Cosby’s lawyers to get the case thrown out because of what they said was a decade-old non-prosecution agreement from Castor. > > The current district attorney has said there is no record of any such agreement. > [@](#): > > Castor said Tuesday that he found serious flaws in the case in 2005 and declined to bring charges. He said that he made the decision as a representative of the state — as “the sovereign,” as he put it, over and over — and that it would last in perpetuity. > > “For all time, yes,” Castor said when pressed on the point. > > And he suggested that Cosby and his lawyer at the time had the same understanding, because Cosby later agreed to testify without invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in a lawsuit brought against him by Constand. > > “Cosby would’ve had to have been nuts to say those things if there was any chance he could’ve been prosecuted,” Castor said. > > Castor said he hoped, correctly, at the time that the decision would free the comedian to testify in the lawsuit and help Constand win damages. Apparently the judge has 3 options: 1) he can decide that the criminal trial procedes and admits the deposition evidence, 2) he can let the criminal trial proceed but exclude all evidence that resulted from the earlier immunity-induced deposition (which would severely hamper the prosecution), or 3) he can find the agreement to be binding and toss the presecution entirely. I myself am not any sort of legal expert and don’t intend to take a position here, but since there are lawyers arguing both sides of the case I assume both are sustainable. (Though there is apparently a political undertone to the entire prosecution.) So what do the experts at the SDMB think? ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2016, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-experts-weigh-in-on-the-cosby-criminal-case/744975/2 "2016-02-02T18:54:06Z")
IANA legal expert, but it sounds pretty tough to disregard the immunity deal when the prosecutor who authorized it says it was valid. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2016, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-experts-weigh-in-on-the-cosby-criminal-case/744975/3 "2016-02-02T19:05:27Z")
What makes it a bit more complicated is that there’s apparently considerable uncertainty as to [what the deal was (and even some as to whether it existed to begin with)](http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20160203_Norristown_hearing_to_decide_fate_of_Cosby_case.html). > [@](#): > > In his testimony, Castor told the judge his 2005 decision had been mischaracterized as if it was a negotiated or jointly approved deal. > > “I keep seeing the word agreement,” he said. “Everyone has used the word wrong.” > > Instead, Castor outlined what he described it as a binding legal decision he reached on his own. When he did, he said, he told the comedian’s lawyers and asked an assistant to inform Constand’s attorneys. > > “Mr. Cosby was not getting prosecuted at all - ever - as far as I was concerned,” he said. “And my belief was that, I had the power to make such a statement.” > > But the version of events Castor offered Tuesday conflicts with an earlier description he outlined in an e-mail written to his successor last year. Cosby’s defense team has since cited that message as evidence. > > In it, Castor said that he, Cosby’s criminal lawyer and Constand’s legal team all decided together that a public announcement that the threat of public prosecution was forever closed would compel the comedian to testify in his accuser’s civil suit. > > The suit later settled out of court for an undisclosed sum. > > Constand’s lawyers have also denied they were told about any non-prosecution agreement. So (according to today’s testimony) it’s not like they had a negotiated deal. The DA assured Cosby there would be no prosecution and Cosby relied on that to his detriment (in giving the deposition). ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2016, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-experts-weigh-in-on-the-cosby-criminal-case/744975/4 "2016-02-02T19:09:02Z")
I think it’s actually pretty simple. If there was an agreement or a “deal,” it should have been documented. As far as I can tell, not only was it not documented, nobody even _said_ anything about it to anyone until recently, and even now, when talking about it, the prosecutor says things along the lines of “I decided not to bring charges.” Just looking around quickly, it seems that articles about it say that the prosecutor, at the time, announced that there wasn’t enough evidence to bring the charges. Well, so sure, he definitely decided not to bring charges. That’s not an enforceable agreement that no charges will ever be brought; it sounds more like he made an independent decision not to prosecute, whether or not he told Cosby that’s what he was going to decide. It may or may not be the case that Cosby was nuts to testify. That’s not really proof of an enforceable agreement, though. It’s a fairly straightforward legal principle that if you want a court to enforce some kind of agreement in a criminal case, you better have something on paper. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2016, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-experts-weigh-in-on-the-cosby-criminal-case/744975/5 "2016-02-02T19:30:29Z")
Perhaps a legal expert can clarify this: I had the impression from somewhere that what counted was Cosby’s reasonable belief that he had immunity when he testified. I guess ‘reasonable’ has a lot of wiggle room, but I thought the idea was that prosecutor’s couldn’t use fine print in a deal to deny someone their 5th amendment rights. Now based on the cites in post#3 this looks like an unholy mess. Wouldn’t the judge in the civil case have noted Cosby waiving his 5th amendment rights? ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2016, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-experts-weigh-in-on-the-cosby-criminal-case/744975/6 "2016-02-02T20:23:08Z")
On another note, I did not understand the statement in USA today that Castor’s testimony was a mixed bag because he [claims to want the prosecution to prevail:](http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2016/02/02/bill-cosby-goes-court-criminal-charges/79686840/) > [@](#): > > Still, he was firm: He supports the prosecution team against Cosby. > > “Let’s be clear," Castor said to Cosby’s attorney. “I’m not on your team here. I want (prosecutors) to win” at the hearing. I would have thought having a guy who wants you to lose delivering testimony that supports your case is better than having a guy who wants you to win offering that same testimony. [Personally, I suspect that the main guy Castor wants to win is Castor himself. He needs to justify his decision to not prosecute Cosby when the story first came up (this was an issue in a recent election in which he ran). So he needs to present the case as being unwinnable, and he might be undermined a bit if Cosby is convicted this time around. So it’s in his interest both to undermine the prosecution and to claim to be opposed to Cosby.] ---
**Author:** ![Diceman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Diceman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diceman)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2016, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-experts-weigh-in-on-the-cosby-criminal-case/744975/7 "2016-02-02T20:49:37Z")
The problem is, if the judge allows the evidence to be admitted, then he’s basically guaranteeing that nobody will ever cooperate with an investigation again, because whatever promised the DA makes could be conveniently forgotten later. So, the next time the DEA wants to make a deal with some streetcorner pusher to take down his supplier, the low-level guy will tell them to stuff it, because he has every reason to believe that a few years from now someone else will go ahead and prosecute him anyway. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2016, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-experts-weigh-in-on-the-cosby-criminal-case/744975/8 "2016-02-02T21:17:28Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > On another note, I did not understand the statement in USA today that Castor’s testimony was a mixed bag because he [claims to want the prosecution to prevail:](http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2016/02/02/bill-cosby-goes-court-criminal-charges/79686840/)I would have thought having a guy who wants you to lose delivering testimony that supports your case is better than having a guy who wants you to win offering that same testimony] I know it is shocking…but some people actually will tell the truth…even in court…even if it means they don’t legally get what they want. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2016, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-experts-weigh-in-on-the-cosby-criminal-case/744975/9 "2016-02-02T21:20:38Z")
Some will and some won’t and some will shade things a bit. But the point is that to the extent that his personal preference has any impact, it would tend to strengthen the credibility of his pro-Cosby testimony. (Beyond that, his personal sympathies would have no bearing at all.) ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2016, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-experts-weigh-in-on-the-cosby-criminal-case/744975/10 "2016-02-02T21:31:49Z")
Why was he offered immunity in civil case? ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2016, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-experts-weigh-in-on-the-cosby-criminal-case/744975/11 "2016-02-02T21:47:14Z")
> [@Diceman](#): > > The problem is, if the judge allows the evidence to be admitted, then he’s basically guaranteeing that nobody will ever cooperate with an investigation again, because whatever promised the DA makes could be conveniently forgotten later. So, the next time the DEA wants to make a deal with some streetcorner pusher to take down his supplier, the low-level guy will tell them to stuff it, because he has every reason to believe that a few years from now someone else will go ahead and prosecute him anyway. “Sure, I’ll sign that agreement. Where is it?” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2016, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-experts-weigh-in-on-the-cosby-criminal-case/744975/12 "2016-02-02T23:16:33Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > It’s a fairly straightforward legal principle that if you want a court to enforce some kind of agreement in a criminal case, you better have something on paper. It’s not. It’s wise, of course, but not unioversally required. See, _Smith v. State_, 70 SW 3d 848 (TX Ct Crim App 2002): > [@](#): > > The charges against the appellant were dropped for over two years until a new District Attorney, James Farren, was elected and took office. After a review of the case, the new District Attorney decided to reopen the case against the appellant. The appellant filed an Amended Motion to Enforce the Agreement with the Prosecutor, which the trial court denied. > . > . > . > The court held that the agreement not to prosecute was unenforceable because the trial court did not approve the immunity agreement that motivated the prosecutor to agree not to prosecute. We have held this opinion to be in error, and we remand the case to the Court of Appeals to address the issues of the existence of, and performance under, the immunity agreement. > . > . > . > COCHRAN, J., concurring: (at 70 SW 3d 856): > > This case demonstrates the wisdom of a rule that all immunity agreements must be in writing, signed by the defendant, his counsel, the prosecutor, and the trial judge. Indeed, the Legislature might consider enacting a statute outlining the procedures regulating the grant of transactional or use immunity. There were two issues in play in that case, and one of them was whether the fact that the immunity agreement was not in writing was fatal to the accused’s reliance. It was not. A quick search didn’t find any other cases in the country, and for all I know there is some nuance of Pennsylvania law that makes this Texas case inapposite. I also found a Georgia case that lays out the rationale that an agreement by one prosecutor is binding on subsequent prosecutors, with the same caveat with respect to Pennsylvania law. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2016, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-experts-weigh-in-on-the-cosby-criminal-case/744975/13 "2016-02-03T05:36:41Z")
As a threshold matter, I don’t think immunity requires an agreement of any kind, because a witness can be immunized against his will and then compelled to testify, if he keeps resisting. The grant of immunity presumably should be documented, however. But immunity is something that a prosecutor offers in order to secure a witness’s testimony against some other person in some criminal proceeding. That’s the only reason why a prosecutor would need to do so. Neither Castor nor Cosby’s defense team is saying that Castor gave Cosby immunity to obtain his testimony. Rather, the claim seems to be that Castor intended for his decision not to prosecute to constitute immunity – for no reason. Castor has nothing to do with the later civil suit. Rather, the fact that Cosby later testified in the separate civil case is only supposed to be evidence that he understood Castor’s decision not to prosecute to constitute immunity, because otherwise he would not have testified. I am not a criminal attorney, but this all sounds like nonsense. Castor could have entered into a binding agreement with Cosby, but there is simply no reason to believe he did so, because he would have gotten nothing in return. Castor himself denies doing so. To all appearances, all Castor did was close his file. Jeopardy has not attached, and any subsequent prosecutor can come along, reopen the case, and file charges over the exact same conduct based on the exact same evidence. Castor argues that his mere decision not to charge Cosby, in and of itself, had binding effect, but no sensible court is going to buy into that contention, because it would cripple the criminal justice system. Prosecutors make decisions not to charge all the time; indeed, the vast majority of what they investigate does not get charged. There can be all sorts of reasons why not: the evidence is weak, a key witness is absent, the harm appears minimal, or the staff is overwhelmed with bigger cases. But these cases always remain open to being revisited if the evidence improves (say, from a confession at a later civil deposition), the harm worsens, or the caseload lightens. Indeed, some network made a whole TV series out of cold cases. A court ruling that a mere decision not to prosecute forbids a prosecutor from ever reopening that file means that they not only have only one chance to try a person, they also only have one chance even just to investigate, and that’s too damaging to the whole process. I don’t think Cosby’s supposed reliance upon his belief in immunity when he testified in the civil suit will amount to much, since it doesn’t seem at all reasonable to rely on a simple decision not to prosecute. Further, his current counsel has produced not only no evidence of an immunity agreement, but no direct evidence of Cosby’s belief in immunity back then. They seem to have found no correspondence with the civil plaintiff’s counsel about Cosby’s intentions as to his Fifth Amendment rights, and apparently no record in Cosby’s civil attorney’s files of any Fifth Amendment analysis or of him being counseled about immunity. Not knowing anything about this judge, I may well be proven wrong, but I don’t see how Cosby has a leg to stand on here. I think the deposition testimony comes in. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2016, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-experts-weigh-in-on-the-cosby-criminal-case/744975/14 "2016-02-03T16:12:51Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > I am not a criminal attorney, but this all sounds like nonsense. Castor could have entered into a binding agreement with Cosby, but there is simply no reason to believe he did so, because he would have gotten nothing in return. Castor himself denies doing so. To all appearances, all Castor did was close his file. Jeopardy has not attached, and any subsequent prosecutor can come along, reopen the case, and file charges over the exact same conduct based on the exact same evidence. I don’t quite agree. According to Castor, he sought to induce Cosby to testify in Constand’s civil litigation, and because he had (in his view) an unwinnable criminal case, the best way to achieve some measure of justice for Constand was in the civil arena. By granting him transactional immunity by agreeing to not prosecute, denied Cosby the option to assert his Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination in response to a civil deposition. Now, certainly the judge may find that isn’t exactly what happened. That’s a question of fact. But if that IS what happened, then Cosby’s deposition testimony relied upon the existence of that grant of transactional immunity. Now, I think the court, absent a written agreement, might be able to find that the grant was actually use immunity, since use immunity adequately confers Fifth Amendment protections. In other words, there are two issues in play: can he be prosecuted at all, and if he can, can the deposition testimony (and fruits therefrom) be used against him? The claim of use immunity seems strong to me. The claim that transactional immunity exists seems weaker, although it turns on a finding of fact by the judge. And, to echo the dissent in the case I mentioned above: \*This case demonstrates the wisdom of a rule that all immunity agreements must be in writing, signed by the defendant, his counsel, the prosecutor, and the trial judge. \* ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2016, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-experts-weigh-in-on-the-cosby-criminal-case/744975/15 "2016-02-03T16:22:46Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > According to Castor, he sought to induce Cosby to testify in Constand’s civil litigation, and because he had (in his view) an unwinnable criminal case, the best way to achieve some measure of justice for Constand was in the civil arena. By granting him transactional immunity by agreeing to not prosecute, denied Cosby the option to assert his Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination in response to a civil deposition. The sense I’m getting, though, is that Castor never specifically said “I hereby grant you immunity” or anything to that effect. But rather, that he believed that under the law his decision to not prosecute was binding on “the sovereign” forever after, and thus had the same practical impact. And possibly the Cosby lawyers also made that assumption. And based on that, Cosby felt free to testify. But that’s a legal question. Suppose the current judge feels that Castor was incorrect as a matter of law, and that both he and Cosby operated under an incorrect assumption that as a result of his decision Cosby was free to testify without fear of prosecution (or at least that his testimony couldn’t be used against him). Where does that leave Cosby? Does he get to say “I only testified because I was given to understand by the prosecutor that his decision was binding and permanent”, or is that his tough luck? > [@](#): > > Now, certainly the judge may find that isn’t exactly what happened. That’s a question of fact. Who has the burden of proof as to the question of fact, and what’s the standard of proof? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2016, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-experts-weigh-in-on-the-cosby-criminal-case/744975/16 "2016-02-03T16:56:14Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Suppose the current judge feels that Castor was incorrect as a matter of law, and that both he and Cosby operated under an incorrect assumption that as a result of his decision Cosby was free to testify without fear of prosecution (or at least that his testimony couldn’t be used against him). Where does that leave Cosby? Does he get to say “I only testified because I was given to understand by the prosecutor that his decision was binding and permanent”, or is that his tough luck? The question the judge will have to then decide is: was Cosby’s understanding a reasonable (though ultimately wrong) reliance on the prosecutor’s representation? If it was, then the state may be _estopped_ from using the testimony anyway. If Cosby’s reliance was not reasonable, then his deposition testimony is almost certainly admissible against him. > [@](#): > > Who has the burden of proof as to the question of fact, and what’s the standard of proof? Cosby’s team must prove the existence of an agreement, or their reliance on promissory estoppel, by preponderance of the evidence. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2016, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-experts-weigh-in-on-the-cosby-criminal-case/744975/17 "2016-02-04T00:29:07Z")
If I understand it correctly, this dispute has [been decided](http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/bill-cosby-scandal/judge-won-t-stop-bill-cosby-sex-assault-trial-due-n510746) in favor of the prosecution. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2016, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-experts-weigh-in-on-the-cosby-criminal-case/744975/18 "2016-02-04T01:59:22Z")
Looks like there never was an agreement. What’s up with the former prosecutor? Why did he go to court with this in the first place? ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2016, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-experts-weigh-in-on-the-cosby-criminal-case/744975/19 "2016-02-04T03:20:22Z")
I’m not a lawyer but frankly I can’t believe Cosby’s lawyers didn’t demand an ironclad immunity agreement in writing. ---
**Author:** ![madsircool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madsircool/32/3432_2.png) [@madsircool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madsircool)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2016, 7:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-experts-weigh-in-on-the-cosby-criminal-case/744975/20 "2016-02-04T07:11:33Z")
> [@Diceman](#): > > The problem is, if the judge allows the evidence to be admitted, then he’s basically guaranteeing that nobody will ever cooperate with an investigation again, because whatever promised the DA makes could be conveniently forgotten later. So, the next time the DEA wants to make a deal with some streetcorner pusher to take down his supplier, the low-level guy will tell them to stuff it, because he has every reason to believe that a few years from now someone else will go ahead and prosecute him anyway. You are forgetting the statute of limitations. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-experts-weigh-in-on-the-cosby-criminal-case/744975.md?page=2)