But there’s no evidence that he relied on any agreement, because there’s no evidence of an agreement. If he relied on the prosecutor’s statement that he had chosen not to prosecute, that reliance is also unreasonable unless the prosecutor’s decision was binding (which it clearly wasn’t).
Who does it have to be reasonable to, Cosby or his lawyer?
Because his (deposition) lawyer is saying that he (the lawyer) relied on it, and while it may have been a mistake for a lawyer to have done this, it was probably reasonable for Cosby to rely on what his lawyer told him.
You keep trying to make this about whether or not there is an actual written agreement as if that is the only consideration.
The testimony of the previous prosecutor can’t be dismissed as easily as that. The question should be whether Cosby reasonably relied on the words and actions of the prosecutor regardless of whether or not it was binding.
I think the right against self incrimination lays with Cosby not his lawyer. But the question isn’t whether Cosby reasonably relied on his lawyer, the question should be whether the hypothetical reasonable man would have relied on the prosecutor’s words and actions to believe that he could testify at the civil hearing without incriminating himself.
There are two problems. First, there’s no credible evidence as to what the prosecutor’s words and actions were. There’s no record of any kind, and Castor’s testimony was so garbled and contradictory that the court found it not credible.
Second, there is no evidence of Cosby’s reliance. Again, there’s no written agreement, and there are no notes or memos or communications from his lawyer’s files. There are no witnesses who ever heard Cosby say anything about being immune from prosecution. There’s nothing. We don’t have to consider whether his reliance was reasonable, because there is no basis for concluding that he relied at all.
Since the DA’s office told Cosby in 2005 that they had declined to prosecute, has any new evidence against Cosby been uncovered?
There’s his deposition. Also, the emergence of all the other alleged victims may yield evidence that his conduct was consistent with some pattern.
So, if I understand correctly, the DA told Cosby that he had investigated the case at that he was not filing charges. Cosby takes this to mean that he is never, no matter what, never ever filing charges, so he feels free to make incriminating statements in a civil deposition.
The current DA takes that civil deposition along with other 404 (b) evidence and decides to press charges. Cosby cries foul and says that the only reason he gave the civil deposition was in reliance on the prior DA stating that no charges would be pressed.
Is that a fair summary of his argument? If so, I think it is a nonsense one.
How is it any different than this conversation, after I am a suspect for my wife’s murder:
Prosecutor: Ultravires, we looked at the evidence, and we are not filing charges against you.
Me: Ha, ha! Sucker! I killed her and got away with it!!!
Prosecutor: Well, now that you said that, we are filing charges.
Me: No fair! You said you weren’t filing charges.
It’s not “evidence” per se, but the complaining witness/victim gave a much more lurid description of what happened to her in the civil case than she did in the original police report. Supposedly, that was what triggered the current prosecutor’s decision to reopen the case. Whether her original complaint was watered down by police or she lied or what is beyond me.