“Who was allowed to grant him such CRIMINAL immunity during a private civil case? Who has that authority?”
Having dealt with the prosecutor’s office, I can tell you they have huge discretion. But they are not allowed to ignore the constitution. This is because our founding fathers came from a place where the accused had no rights at all. They reasoned that it was better to let a guilty man go free than to wrongly convict an innocent man. Thus, the prosecutor is empowered to make binding agreements. This is because they almost never have a slam-dunk case with all the evidence they need for a conviction. (As was this case where Cosby, in a criminal proceeding had his fifth amendment rights against self incrimination.) There were enough problems with the accuser’s statements that the prosecutor reasoned he’d lose a culminal case. By letting Cosby testify in a civil case, the new prosecutor reasoned that he’d waved his fifth amendment rights. Without the prior agreement to not prosecute, probably the civil case would have been lost. The question the prosecutor has to deal with is, what does he do to get the maximum amount of justice under the rules he has to operate by? He does not get to change the rules after the game has started.
The judge in the case had campaigned on putting Crosby in prison. He should have recused himself and let an impartial judge take the case. He didn’t. It was a huge breach of the intent of the laws to protect the accused.
Whether Cosby is guilty or not, his rights...our rights, had been violated.
But why was a criminal prosecutor involved in a civil lawsuit?
Shouldn’t that have been Cosby’s lawyer versus her lawyer?
Other than, for example, the right to a trial by jury and habeas corpus, as provided by the Magna Carta, you mean?