Bill Cosby prosecutors ask US Supreme Court to review case

NY Post ^ | November 29, 2021 4:13pm

[conservative98]

Prosecutors asked the US Supreme Court to review the ruling that overturned Bill Cosby’s conviction, arguing in a petition Monday that a decision announced in a press release does not give a defendant lifetime immunity.

Prosecutors said the ruling could set a dangerous precedent if convictions are overturned over dubious closed-door deals. They have also complained that the chief judge of the state’s high court appeared to misstate key facts of the case when he discussed the court ruling that overturned Cosby’s conviction in a television interview.

“This decision as it stands will have far-reaching negative consequences beyond Montgomery County and Pennsylvania. The US Supreme Court can right what we believe is a grievous wrong,” Montgomery County District Attorney Kevin Steele wrote in the petition, which seeks a Supreme Court review under the due process clause of the US Constitution.

Cosby’s lawyers have long argued that he relied on a promise that he would never be charged when he gave damaging testimony in an accuser’s civil suit in 2006.

The admissions were later used against him in two criminal trials.

The only written evidence of such a promise is a 2005 press release from the then-prosecutor, Bruce Castor, who said he did not have enough evidence to arrest Cosby.

The release included an ambiguous “caution” that Castor “will reconsider this decision should the need arise.” The parties have since spent years debating what that meant.

Castor’s successors, who gathered new evidence and arrested Cosby in 2015, say it falls far short of a lifetime immunity agreement. They also doubt that Castor ever made such a deal. Instead, they say Cosby had strategic reasons to give the deposition rather than invoke his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, even if it backfired when “he slipped up” in his rambling testimony.

[rarestia]

RIP double jeopardy? It’s incredible how fast we’re sliding toward socialism.

[BenLurkin]

The “Pound Cake” Speech

https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/billcosbypoundcakespeech.htm

[pepsi_junkie]

“This decision as it stands will have far-reaching negative consequences beyond Montgomery County and Pennsylvania.

Cosby is a scumbag. But the prosecutors did an end-around of the 5th amendment. They gave him immunity in a civil case in order to compel testimony from him and then yanked the immunity and prosecuted him using his own testimony against himself. He was guilty as hell but guilty scumbags still can't be unethically stripped of their constitutional rights.

The consequences of throwing away THAT precedent are far frm negative.

[Pearls Before Swine]

My bet is that the Supremes will ignore this case.

It seems obvious to me that when the prosecutor proffers that something is confidential, they shouldn’t be able to turn around and use it against you. Seems like self-incrimination by entrapment or fraud.

This is true even if Cosby is a famous and inveterate sexual abuser/rapist of women.

So, I think that procedurally, Cosby had to be let off. It’s too bad the prosecution didn’t think it could make its case the legal way.

[Seruzawa]

If it isn’t written it isn’t true. I can’t imagine a verbal immunity agreement would have been accepted by Cosby’s legal team. If Cosby didn’t demand an immunity agreement in writing then more the fool he.

[Tell It Right]

I’ve long suspected that they came for Cosby because he’s not an Uncle Tom type for Dim causes. Every now and then he’s for a Dim cause, but every now and then he says that that the problem with the black community is black behavior.

[Little Ray]

Translation:
“Requiring us to keep our promises sets a dangerous precedent.”

[DannyTN]

Okay, but neither him nor his attorney demanded that immunity in writing???

It sounds like the prosecution is saying it never happened.

[jz638]

The way this “should” work is that the prosecutors should be charged for giving the corrupt deal. Many plea deals are immoral end runs around actual justice anyway. Either run the case you have or don’t charge the crime at all.

[nickcarraway]

Do you know why Cosby would have testified and given testimony damaging to himself, even if he was give immunity? Why would his lawyers have allowed it, and what was the benefit to him?

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Probably ginning up a case against Kyle Rittenhouse at this very moment.

[usurper]

It’s too bad the prosecution didn’t think it could make its case the legal way.

Bingo, they knew using his testimony in the civil case would end in him wining an appeal but they did it anyway.

[Skywise]

I’d prefer they take it and confirm that a prosecutors word - especially written - is binding.

[Magnatron]

I don't doubt for a moment Cosby's guilt here. The problem I have with the entire affair is the notion that women can come forward many years after a sexual assault event and file criminal charges -- long after any real proof has been literally washed away. I also have suspicion that some of these women didn't feel the need to report Cosby as long as he was in a position to do something for them. Once that went away, he's of no use to them.

As far as I'm concerned, if you are sexually assaulted, you need to come forward immediately. After a short while, you've lost your right to complain.

[SunkenCiv]

Prosecutors asked the US Supreme Court to review the ruling that overturned Bill Cosby’s conviction, arguing in a petition Monday that a decision announced in a press release does not give a defendant lifetime immunity. Prosecutors said the ruling could set a dangerous precedent if convictions are overturned over dubious closed-door deals. They have also complained that the chief judge of the state’s high court appeared to misstate key facts of the case when he discussed the court ruling that overturned Cosby’s conviction in a television interview.

---

Norm Macdonald on Bill Cosby | April 27, 2017 | chaimy4life

---

(blue language) Norm MacDonald on hypocrites.

Norm MacDonald | May 22, 2018 | Norman Odonnell

[the_individual2014]

Not really on the subject fully, but I think people these days are not understanding what the courts/trial is suppost to be, which is the search for the truth and the examining of details, not a tool of vengeance or polticial grandstanding, and we are losing sight of that.

- Just my two cents

[beef]

“He was guilty as hell but guilty scumbags still can’t be unethically stripped of their constitutional rights.”

I could not agree more. The fact that so many people out there don’t get it shows you how far we have slid toward tyranny.

[beef]

“I think people these days are not understanding”

This is because public schools no longer teach kids how our system is supposed to work. Instead they teach them to blindly hate it.

[the_individual2014]

And that does not bode well for the future sad to say.