Why Bill Cosby was released.

I am curious. The original DA tainted the case, meaning that the quaalude testimony (which was protected under the 5th Amendment) was inserted into the trial.

Could the new DA have avoided this? I am wondering if it would have been possible for the prosecution in the new trial to keep the problematic testimony out of the evidence. Was this case doomed from the start?

I have been looking. I haven't seen any legal opinon on this question. The Supreme court does seen to focus on the "promise" made to Cosby by the original DA... but it seems that there should have been a way to prosecute this case anyway.

There really isn't. The former prosecutor screwed up...and all subsequent prosecutors are bound by that screw up.

Cosby has, and will continue, to pay a huge price for the **** he pulled. But, my guess is he will not spend any more time in prison because of prosecutorial mistakes.

Because he's black.

So, can a woman who was drugged and raped by a man sue the prosecutor who made a promise to the rapist that he would not be prosecuted--a promise made before hearing the rapist's sordid tales of using drugs to aid him in his raping?

Is there anything in writing to substantiate the promise. If not, when did a promise become a suitable substitute for an actual agreement in writing?

There is videotape that was broadcast at the time of the prosecutor saying he wouldn't prosecute. The supreme court justices accepted that as proof.

I don't think it is realistically possible for the victim of a crime to sue the prosecutor. Nor do I think this would be a good thing. Prosecutors have to make these decisions... in this case I disagree with the decision. But in other cases I agree.

From Fox News.

What’s next for Bill Cosby after sex assault conviction overturned
The disgraced star was released from prison after serving two years of a three- to 10-year sentence

"As reactions continue to pour in on the heels of Bill Cosby’s unexpected release from state prison, new questions arise as to what the embattled TV dad could do next.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court threw out the 83-year-old disgraced actor’s conviction for sexual assault after finding that District Attorney Kevin Steele, the prosecutor who brought the case against Cosby, violated an agreement to not charge him. It was a deal that previous District Attorney Bruce Castor had made in 2005, though it had apparently never been put in writing.

Now, leading legal expert Andrew Stoltmann, who is not involved in Cosby’s case, tells Fox News that there is a clear chance Cosby can turn the tables on the legal system and file his own grievance after serving two years of a three- to 10-year sentence for alleged sexual assault.

"First off, from a big-picture perspective, it's kind of a black mark on the entire #MeToo movement because Cosby was basically the start of #MeToo so for his conviction to get overturned, it's a pretty big deal," said the Chicago litigator.


'The Five' reacts to Bill Cosby's release from prisonVideo
"On a micro-level, I don't think you can really read too much into it because this was a real unique fact pattern – and by that, I mean the prosecutors said Cosby wasn't going to be indicted – publicly, he said that which is rare. So Cosby relied on that and then he testified in a deposition," Stoltmann added.

"Now, ordinarily, if Cosby might be indicted, he could have pled the Fifth Amendment – the right not to self-incriminate himself but because the prosecutors said he's not going to be indicted, Cosby spoke," the attorney explained. "Cosby let himself get deposed and he couldn't claim the Fifth because the prosecutor said he wasn't going to be indicted. So it's a real narrow fact pattern. I don't think Harvey Weinstein or the other #MeToo people sitting in jail can use this fact pattern, but it is a big deal."

Stotlmann spoke to Fox News about what Cosby's next move could be and more.


Fox News: What is Cosby’s likely next move? Could he sue for damages?

Andrew Stotlmann: Yeah, I would put the odds at better than 50/50 that Cosby files a civil lawsuit for malicious prosecution and I would expect him to do that because look, prosecutors have a great deal of immunity in what they do unless they commit clear prosecutorial misconduct and a compelling case can be made that this is prosecutorial misconduct. It's a black eye on prosecutors and it's a black eye on the criminal process system … Now, how much lasting impact it has? I don't think a great deal. But today it's a black eye.


Fox News: How is it that Cosby’s defense team could have uncovered an unwritten deal of non-prosecution from 2005?

Stotlmann: I think they relied on the court records and public statements. You usually can't introduce new information in an appeal like this. So I don't know precisely the evidentiary record. But given Cosby's resources, he had the ability to investigate, dig and establish a quality record.



Fox News: In your experience looking at cases of this magnitude, how much money would you estimate Bill Cosby spent on his legal defense from indictment to release?

Stotlmann: I would say there's no question Cosby has spent at least $10 million and that number could be as high as $25 million between the two trials – the appeal, the private investigators – I mean, it's a substantial bill. And he had some of the best lawyers that money can buy.



Fox News: When you first saw the judgment come through in the news, what was your initial reaction?

Stotlmann: I was shocked because it's not common for criminal convictions to be overturned. But there is an advantage to having a lot of money and having the best lawyers that money can buy and Cosby has taken advantage of that – and I don't mean that in a bad way, but when you have money, you can afford a very vigorous legal defense. And that's what Cosby did."

Did the prosecutor know at the time of the video that Bill had used drugs to incapacitate and rape women?

The question is not whether the accused actually did the crime.

The question that a prosecutor asks is whether the case can be won in court.

Those are two completely different questions. Whether or not he knew that Bill Cosby actually did the crime is legally irelevant. Of course it is is morally irelevant, but don't confuse the legal system with morality.

It could be a trap. I have a feeling that liberal news outlets like CNN and the New York Times are going to lay blame at the feet of the former prosecutor
Castor , who also defended Trump. Got it? I think they are trying to turn up the heat on Trump in a bid to prevent him from running for president again. In other words, they want to cajole more conservative voters into pinning blame on Trump and his team. It's called swiftboating.

It just comes within a whisker of telling both liberals and conservatives that Trump's men are friends of rapists. You can bet your bippy that they are going to mention Trump even he has nothing to do with this case. They may be doing it on CNN.

This was all done through the mechanics of the law. The courts will have a final say on it...not us here in this forum.

You're right. Whether or not Bill drugged and raped women is no longer a question. And whether or not he was released due to a prosecutor's broken verbal promise is also no longer a question. We know why he was released. The question now is the matter of justice. The prosecutor made a promise/decision to not prosecute before he listened to a rapist's confession. Now, why would a prosecutor do that?

The question now is how justice will be served concerning the rapist's victims. Since the prosecutor is responsible for the release of the rapist, he/she should be held accountable for such a . . . screw-up. But that's for another thread.

I don't get your point.

The fifth amendment says someone accused of a crime doesnt need to make a confession. That is the whole poont.

Better to sue the county for violating his civil liberties.

Why did he confess?

Am I doing your homework for you? You can read the articles for yourself, you know.

He didn't confess to rape. He testified that he had given quaaludes to women. He testified to this because he was compelled to under oath. If the women took the drugs consensually (and yes, people do take drugs consensually as part of sex), then it was not rape.

This evidence, which was compelled under oath, could not be used against Cosby. And it was used against Cosby.

I am still not sure if the new DA could have avoided this by carefully building his case without the problematic evidence. The majority opinion seems to say that any prosecution was a problem after the case had been dropped.... but there was a dissenting opinion that Cosby could even be retried (with the evidence excluded).

Had the DA been more careful, I wonder if the Supreme Court might have swung the other way (they only would have needed 1 more vote).

Once again the "justice system?" proves that with enough money one can get justice from judges who don't know the meaning of justice. The prosecutor who gave him this get out of jail card should go to jail hself.

You are correct. He did not confess to raping women. However, I find it unlikely that after agreeing to partake of Quaaludes for the purpose of consensual sex, the women would then turn around and tell stories of waking up with Bill on top of them. Evidently the jurors wondered about that, too, and came to their conclusion.

Yes, And that is exactly why the Supreme Court judges had to conclude that Bill Cosby didn't receive a fair trial.

The jurors never should have had that information.