Posted on 04/27/2018 5:39:55 AM PDT by Kaslin
Bill Cosby was found guilty on all 3 counts of aggravated indecent assault for drugging and sexually assaulting Andrea Constand in Philadelphia.
I have to wonder how much the prosecutor’s closing arguments had to do with the jury’s decision. The government made policy arguments to the jury during their closing argument. The prosecutor argued that Cosby questioning the complaining witness’ intentions is “the exact reason that women and victims of sexual assault don’t report this crime.” The government was shaming Cosby for confronting his accuser, for exercising a Constitutional right enumerated in the Bill of Rights. The effect of the argument is that the prosecutor signaled to the jury that the fait of future victims feeling confident in reporting crimes rests in the hands of this jury.
This was a policy argument. A way to implant into the mind of the jury the idea that making a societal change will start with a Cosby conviction. The government was referencing the #MeToo movement and the hoards of women (and men) coming forward on the internet to report their previously unreported allegations of sexual assault. Yet, it is a dangerous road, making an individual set of allegations of a trial into a representation of society’s problems with this type of accusation. Surely an individual should not be the scapegoat for the ills of society as a whole.
The government’s proposition that the defense lawyer did something wrong by showing that the victim lacked credibility is absurd, but yet that is what the prosecutor did in these words: “the exact reason that women and victims of sexual assault don’t report this crime.” Should Cosby not be permitted to defend himself against this woman's accusations? Her words are enough to land him in prison for 10 years per accusation. Her story is from from an alleged act that took place in 2004, over a decade prior to her reporting this crime. Should Cosby’s legal team not have questioned her motives, inconsistencies and the like? The law permits and encourages fact finding in a trial. That’s the point of the trial!
The importance of this being an enumerated trial right cannot be brushed aside. The Bill of Rights only enumerates some rights, and leaves the others unenumerated. The Sixth Amendment is enumerated. This means it is of utmost importance. According to the Supreme Court, the essential purpose of the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment is the opportunity to cross-examine a complaining witness. “The opponent demands confrontation, not for the idle purpose of gazing upon the witness, or of being gazed upon by him, but for the purpose of cross-examination, which cannot be had except by the direct and personal putting of questions and obtaining immediate answers.” Davis v. Alaska 415 U.S. 308 (1974).
Cosby was shamed by the government for asserting his Constitutional rights. Should the government shame individuals for exercising their right to trial, their right to cross examine witnesses, or their right to present a defense to a jury? Absolutely not. These rights are part of the foundational freedoms that our country is built on.
We have to be able to separate out policy arguments from individual responsibility. The legislature is entrusted with making policy. Juries are entrusted with deciding whether an individual committed a crime in a particular case. Juries cannot and should not decide an individual’s fate based on policy arguments. Juries should not be deciding the fait of society in a criminal trial. The jury instructions read by the judge do not ask the jury to consider policy issues. Neither should the government.
But CNN points out that this conviction did just that, that this finding of guilt “represents a test of how the cultural movement will translate into a courtroom arena,” since this was "the first celebrity sexual assault trial since the #MeToo movement began last fall.” That’s the problem. A criminal conviction should never be part of a “movement,” because thats how we get conviction by mob.
Cosby now faces the imposition of 10 years per count - that's 30 years in prison, in whole or in part, depending on his ordered sentence. He is an old man that faces the possibility of being imprisoned for the duration of his time here on earth. I can only hope the jury relied on the facts and the law, and not on policy, to come to their decision.
Bingo! This whole trial has been a dog-and-pony show.
soon. and they had to start somewhere, why NOT Cosby? because he made the easily amused laugh?
Well we're waiting.................
well I’m not in charge, but i did read they are getting ready to take Weinstein to trial. Is that what you are waiting for?
That, among others.
I hope there is time left to get. them. all. But Cosby is a great step in the right direction.
April 25th was the 40th anniversary of WJC’s rape of Juanita Broaddrick.
“Hoards” of women?
Yup. I agree with you. The muddled instructions from the judge, combined with Cosby’s attorney apparently falling asleep during testimony will result in an overturn on appeal.
He should have gone to prison years ago. The guy is a perverted POS but will likely get off on appeal.
From the article: “Yet, it is a dangerous road, making an individual set of allegations of a trial into a representation of society’s problems with this type of accusation. Surely an individual should not be the scapegoat for the ills of society as a whole.”
I also predict it will be thrown out on appeal, but not because of the “consent” instruction. The 5 other women brought in regarding his prior bad acts - not brought in the first time because likely not constitutional and they didn’t want to risk a clean case then.
OJ was let off decades ago when the defense had a compliant jury disregard the evidence and vindicate him as justice for police and society discrimination. This time evidence that should not have been considered was brought in and appeared to be the factor getting a jury over the bar of “reasonable doubt” the prior jury could not agree on - with so much evidence this particular victim had ulterior motives for criminal charges after already obtaining $3.4 million in a settlement over 10 years ago.
Was Cosby guilty of the crime? Likely. But absent the new witnesses, unlikely it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
WHAT IS HE CHARGED WITH?
Three counts of felony aggravated indecent assault, each covering a different aspect of the alleged crime.
Count 1 alleges Cosby didn't have consent when he penetrated Constand's genitals with his fingers.
Count 2 alleges she was unconscious or semi-conscious at the time and could not give consent.
Count 3 alleges all this happened after he gave her an intoxicant that substantially impaired her and stopped her from resisting.
Lets try that again. The document is here.
"Acts of the accused associated with this offense: WILLIAM HENRY COSBY DID..." Charge 1: ...PENETRATE THE GENITALS OF THE COMPLAINANT WITH A PART OF HIS BODY WITHOUT THE COMPLAINANTS CONSENT."
Charge 2: "...DID PENETRATE THE GENITALS OF THE COMPLAINANT WITH A PART OF HIS BODY WHILE THE COMPLAINANT WAS UNCONSCIOUS"
Charge 3: "...DID PENETRATE THE GENITALS OF THE COMPLAINANT WITH A PART OF HIS BODY AFTER COSBY SUBSTANTIALLY IMPAIRED THE COMPLAINANT'S POWER TO APPRAISE OR CONTROL HER CONDUCT BY ADMINISTERING DRUGS, INTOXICANTS OR OTHER MEANS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PREVENTING RESISTANCE."
But to answer your question. Yes, she did keep coming back.
They meet, Cosby starts romancing her, they exchange personal gifts, they have a dinner at his house, without the wife, they are drinking wine, relaxing on a sofa, in front of a fire, they exchange personal gifts. Cosby makes a pass.
Looks to me like they were dating !
They met (undisclosed time but 3 year time bracket).
They talked about business matters.
‘Eventually’ they exchanged personal phone numbers
victim claimed they ‘developed a sincere friendship’.
victim claims ‘(Cosby) to be a mentor’.
victim says he (repeatedly)
...invited her to his home for dinner.
...invited her to resaurants
...invited her to events
...introduced her to various people
...provided her with guidance and career advice.
victim claims ‘she had no interest whatsoever in a romantic relationship with Cosby’
BUT she describes to incidents in which Cosby made sexual advances towards her.(!)
In the first incident:
several months after meeting, Cosby invites the victim to his home for dinner prepared by private chef. (no mention of wife in attendance)
When she arrived, she sat and spoke with Cosby near a fire.
After about twenty minutes, the chef served her dinner, which she ate by herself, and she drank some red wine.
After dinner, she and Cosby were sitting on the sofa when, without warning, Cosby reached over and touched her pants, her waist , and her inner thigh.
With that, she dismissed herself to go to the bathroom and gathered her things to leave.
Before her departure, Cosby gave her a bottle of perfume
and thanked her for the little gifts she had brought him.
The victim was embarrassed by this encounter.
She never thought he would hit on her, especially since Cosby is much older than her father.”
Good points. Any appeal will likely cover multiple instances of legal problems that would be legitimate grounds for the appeal.
Victim describes a second pass. (also undated!)
Despite having rejected 2 passes, victim continues to ‘date’ Cosby.
(all before mid-February 2004. But otherwise undated.)
Vitim files her complaint January 22, 2005.
Victim claims that sometime between mid-January and mid February of 2004
...Note: That is a 30 day window. Did they ever specify the date for the attack. Don’t believe they did in the first trial.
Victim claims Cosby calls her on her personal cell phone; invites her over to his house;
asks her to ‘dress in comfortable clothes’
says they are going to talk about her future career plans.
victim says she arrives at 8:45 pm.
... Note: AT NIGHT. Who does that?
... Victim goes over to a man’s house;
... who has been romancing her;
... who has already made 2 passes at her;
... without his wife being present;
...
... If she goes over, what does she think he is going to be thinking she is interest in ?!?
The law could not get Capone on mass murder so they settled for tax evasion.
Cosby got away with raping women for 4+ decades. If we can jail him for jaywalking till he dies in prison then fine by me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.