Bill Cosby free, now and forever.
June 30, 2021 10:11 PM Subscribe
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that Cosby had been denied a fair trial "That’s why Cosby—with the assurance that he wouldn’t be prosecuted—divulged in a civil case brought by Constand that he had given quaaludes to women he had pursued sexually, as explained by The New York Times. But years later, after Castor’s departure from office, his successor Kevin Steele did not uphold Castor’s deal. When Steele moved forward with criminal charges, Cosby’s testimony in the civil case was used as evidence."
"The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that Steele was obligated to stand by Castor’s promise not to charge the comedian. There is no evidence that the promise was ever put in writing.
The court said that the decision not to charge Cosby “opened the door for him to speak freely in a lawsuit against him—and that testimony was key in his conviction years later by another prosecutor.” The court also confirmed Cosby cannot be retried on the same charges."
"My hope is that this decision will not dampen the reporting of sexual assaults by victims. Prosecutors in my office will continue to follow the evidence wherever and to whomever it leads. We still believe that no one is above the law—including those who are rich, famous and powerful.”
I shouldn't say the words that come to mind at that quote.
"The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that Steele was obligated to stand by Castor’s promise not to charge the comedian. There is no evidence that the promise was ever put in writing.
The court said that the decision not to charge Cosby “opened the door for him to speak freely in a lawsuit against him—and that testimony was key in his conviction years later by another prosecutor.” The court also confirmed Cosby cannot be retried on the same charges."
"My hope is that this decision will not dampen the reporting of sexual assaults by victims. Prosecutors in my office will continue to follow the evidence wherever and to whomever it leads. We still believe that no one is above the law—including those who are rich, famous and powerful.”
I shouldn't say the words that come to mind at that quote.
I just hate how people are saying he's vindicated. He's not. He admitted under oath to being a rapist.
I hate that he can't be retried and I hate how his testimony which is part of the public record at this point might be inadmissible as evidence against him by the dozens of other women who he assaulted.
I also don't understand how the courts have established that cops can lie all day long to suspects, but if you get a verbal pinky swear from a DA you've impervious to conviction. What's the difference? Do we hold the officers and upholders of the law to their word or not?
posted by thecjm at 10:30 PM on June 30, 2021 [100 favorites]
I hate that he can't be retried and I hate how his testimony which is part of the public record at this point might be inadmissible as evidence against him by the dozens of other women who he assaulted.
I also don't understand how the courts have established that cops can lie all day long to suspects, but if you get a verbal pinky swear from a DA you've impervious to conviction. What's the difference? Do we hold the officers and upholders of the law to their word or not?
posted by thecjm at 10:30 PM on June 30, 2021 [100 favorites]
Can't we have a good news day? Why couldn't we enjoy Rumsfeld dying for just a little while without being reminded there is no justice?
posted by Flock of Cynthiabirds at 11:02 PM on June 30, 2021 [39 favorites]
posted by Flock of Cynthiabirds at 11:02 PM on June 30, 2021 [39 favorites]
Scott Lemieux of Lawyers, Guns and Money comments on this (twitter link)
After initially saying he thought it might be legally correct--before reading the decision--he says the dissent make the more compelling case, quoting from it:
After initially saying he thought it might be legally correct--before reading the decision--he says the dissent make the more compelling case, quoting from it:
I [Justice Saylor] read the operative language -- “District Attorney Castor declines to authorize the filing of criminal charges in connection with this matter” -- as a conventional public announcement of a present exercise of prosecutorial discretion by the temporary occupant of the elected office of district attorney that would in no way be binding upon his own future decision-making processes, let alone those of his successorposted by mark k at 11:04 PM on June 30, 2021 [31 favorites]
No to abuse the edit window, but he also makes the point that this wasn't in exchange for something, like a grant of immunity for testimony.
posted by mark k at 11:06 PM on June 30, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by mark k at 11:06 PM on June 30, 2021 [3 favorites]
This is devastating. All those women who have to live with him walking around free again.
This may be legal but it is not just.
posted by SLC Mom at 11:16 PM on June 30, 2021 [7 favorites]
This may be legal but it is not just.
posted by SLC Mom at 11:16 PM on June 30, 2021 [7 favorites]
vox's coverage contains this cracker of a statement:
posted by The River Ivel at 11:22 PM on June 30, 2021 [4 favorites]
I’ve probably read hundreds, if not thousands, of judicial opinions in my career, and purely as a matter of judicial craftmanship, Wecht’s is one of the worst.
posted by The River Ivel at 11:22 PM on June 30, 2021 [4 favorites]
May 28, 2021: Bill Cosby Denied Parole After Refusing to Complete Sex Offender Treatment Program, via The Root
posted by Iris Gambol at 11:31 PM on June 30, 2021 [5 favorites]
posted by Iris Gambol at 11:31 PM on June 30, 2021 [5 favorites]
From my friend who clerked for a justice on the Supreme Court, wants remain anonymous and obviously this is paraphrasing, "I am inclined to believe that the PA Supreme Court knows more about prosecutorial immunity under PA law than most talking heads and even the lawyers on the case knew. Castor (note: Trump's defense lawyer during second impeachment) is squarely to blame for poorly handling this and trying to get a conviction no matter what. It is arguable whether or not a second criminal case without the civil case testimony would have lead to a conviction. I have not closely read the opinions yet. I heard good things about Wecht and he's liberal, but have not interacted with him personally."
So there you go, blame Castor. Keep in mind Cosby spent 2 (though I've read elsewhere it was 3?) years of a 3-10 year sentence. He's far from vindicated, his legacy is tarnished and he'll never work again.
posted by geoff. at 11:39 PM on June 30, 2021 [7 favorites]
So there you go, blame Castor. Keep in mind Cosby spent 2 (though I've read elsewhere it was 3?) years of a 3-10 year sentence. He's far from vindicated, his legacy is tarnished and he'll never work again.
posted by geoff. at 11:39 PM on June 30, 2021 [7 favorites]
I feel awful for his victims and I hope they ultimately get justice, somehow. Not much more to say than that.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 11:57 PM on June 30, 2021 [12 favorites]
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 11:57 PM on June 30, 2021 [12 favorites]
So to summarize, this is definitely either
a) A necessary if painful concession to a greater justice that transcends one man's prosecution
or
b) a completely and obviously fucked-up corrupt concession to a wealthy and well-connected individual
posted by anazgnos at 12:07 AM on July 1, 2021 [8 favorites]
a) A necessary if painful concession to a greater justice that transcends one man's prosecution
or
b) a completely and obviously fucked-up corrupt concession to a wealthy and well-connected individual
posted by anazgnos at 12:07 AM on July 1, 2021 [8 favorites]
OMFG.
posted by mark k at 12:26 AM on July 1, 2021 [33 favorites]
Castor, meanwhile, expressed a sense of vindication.This fucker is cheering the fact that when he decided to let a rapist go free he also ruined all future chances for justice.
“The Supreme Court has now ruled that the prosecution and the trial judge were wrong, and I was right. It’s obvious the court agrees with what I did,” he said in an interview. “This is a victory for the Constitution, not necessarily for Mr. Cosby. He won’t be able to get nearly three years of his life back and the stress of two trials and the impact of that on his health. But it does say the system works.”
posted by mark k at 12:26 AM on July 1, 2021 [33 favorites]
Slate: Unfortunately, the Decision Overturning Bill Cosby’s Conviction Makes Sense
Vulture: All Your Questions About Bill Cosby’s Overturned Verdict, Answered
Vox: The court decision freeing Bill Cosby, explained as best we can
posted by kirkaracha at 12:32 AM on July 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
Vulture: All Your Questions About Bill Cosby’s Overturned Verdict, Answered
Vox: The court decision freeing Bill Cosby, explained as best we can
posted by kirkaracha at 12:32 AM on July 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
I also don't understand how the courts have established that cops can lie all day long to suspects, but if you get a verbal pinky swear from a DA you've impervious to conviction. What's the difference? Do we hold the officers and upholders of the law to their word or not?
It's not about lying, but about constitutional rights.
The thing that makes this case sticky is precisely that the DA only gave a "verbal pinky swear" -- and, really, even less than that. But if Cosby believed that he was compelled to testify, then the state has to stick by that pinky swear.
posted by nosewings at 12:40 AM on July 1, 2021 [2 favorites]
It's not about lying, but about constitutional rights.
The thing that makes this case sticky is precisely that the DA only gave a "verbal pinky swear" -- and, really, even less than that. But if Cosby believed that he was compelled to testify, then the state has to stick by that pinky swear.
posted by nosewings at 12:40 AM on July 1, 2021 [2 favorites]
As I understand it, if Cosby chosen to stay silent in his civil trial then there wouldn't have been a criminal trial. The civil court may have been entitled to draw adverse inferences from his silence, but (given that his statements were effectively admissions) I don't know how badly that would have hurt him. In any event, the case was settled, and Costand received compensation for the assault.
So the question is, why did Cosby give evidence in his civil trial? Why didn't he remain silent, and avoid the chance of jail? Cosby's behaviour is consistent with the existence of a promise not to prosecute; Castor's public statement was consistent with it; it seems unlikely that his lawyers would have let Cosby testify without something that they believed was a promise. I'm not really satisfied by the lack of an explicit, documented quid pro quo, but I've got to say that there is a substantial chance - say 20% - that the promise was made. If so, Cosby's testimony was extracted by prosecutorial shenanigans.
I wish that this much effort was spent on every case of prosecutorial misconduct, but the fact that the justice system is often unfair doesn't mean that we should excuse misconduct when we see it. Maybe something good will come out of this, and attorneys will be reminded that prosecutors will lie about verbal or implied agreements. And at least Constand got some compensation, if nothing else. It's a mess, but, given that other attempts at criminally prosecuting him are barred or would probably fail, there's no way to make it better.
posted by Joe in Australia at 12:53 AM on July 1, 2021 [12 favorites]
So the question is, why did Cosby give evidence in his civil trial? Why didn't he remain silent, and avoid the chance of jail? Cosby's behaviour is consistent with the existence of a promise not to prosecute; Castor's public statement was consistent with it; it seems unlikely that his lawyers would have let Cosby testify without something that they believed was a promise. I'm not really satisfied by the lack of an explicit, documented quid pro quo, but I've got to say that there is a substantial chance - say 20% - that the promise was made. If so, Cosby's testimony was extracted by prosecutorial shenanigans.
I wish that this much effort was spent on every case of prosecutorial misconduct, but the fact that the justice system is often unfair doesn't mean that we should excuse misconduct when we see it. Maybe something good will come out of this, and attorneys will be reminded that prosecutors will lie about verbal or implied agreements. And at least Constand got some compensation, if nothing else. It's a mess, but, given that other attempts at criminally prosecuting him are barred or would probably fail, there's no way to make it better.
posted by Joe in Australia at 12:53 AM on July 1, 2021 [12 favorites]
I do not know anything about the Cosby case, or the Britney Spears case, but there is a lot of frustration online right now at the notion that Cosby should be released on the same day that Spears's father's conservatorship over her should be reaffirmed.
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 1:40 AM on July 1, 2021 [32 favorites]
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 1:40 AM on July 1, 2021 [32 favorites]
Just a reminder that if you're seriously wealthy and/or famous you can't rape more than 50 or 60 women before you risk being temporarily inconvenienced.
posted by krisjohn at 1:42 AM on July 1, 2021 [44 favorites]
posted by krisjohn at 1:42 AM on July 1, 2021 [44 favorites]
So he was given immunity from prosecution for all his rapes, in order to get him to talk in a civil case relating to one of them? Am I completely misunderstanding this? Because it seems fucked up that someone could barter away justice for me in order to secure some kind of justice or remuneration for themselves, without my involvement.
posted by Dysk at 1:54 AM on July 1, 2021 [25 favorites]
posted by Dysk at 1:54 AM on July 1, 2021 [25 favorites]
So he was given immunity from prosecution for all his rapes
He's only been granted immunity from prosecution for the rape of Andrea Constand. But I think the statute of limitations has expired for basically everything at this point.
posted by nosewings at 1:58 AM on July 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
He's only been granted immunity from prosecution for the rape of Andrea Constand. But I think the statute of limitations has expired for basically everything at this point.
posted by nosewings at 1:58 AM on July 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
Somehow today, I saw overhead video of Cosby arriving home and getting out of a car. The people with him were waving and hugging delightedly. Regardless of any legal reasons for his release, imagine being one of his victims and seeing people celebrate so openly. It made me feel slightly sick.
posted by greenhornet at 3:33 AM on July 1, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by greenhornet at 3:33 AM on July 1, 2021 [4 favorites]
To me the crux of the issue is whether or not Cosby was compelled to testify in the civil case or whether he volunteered to do so, even if in the possibly mistaken belief he had a deal.
If he volunteered and was wrong, that's on him and the conviction is just. If he was compelled to testify then the later conviction is badly unjust, even if the compulsion happened under a good faith if mistaken belief in a deal.
My understanding had been that he was in fact compelled to testify but now I'm reading that may be wrong.
posted by Justinian at 3:47 AM on July 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
If he volunteered and was wrong, that's on him and the conviction is just. If he was compelled to testify then the later conviction is badly unjust, even if the compulsion happened under a good faith if mistaken belief in a deal.
My understanding had been that he was in fact compelled to testify but now I'm reading that may be wrong.
posted by Justinian at 3:47 AM on July 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
Can't we have a good news day? Why couldn't we enjoy Rumsfeld dying for just a little while without being reminded there is no justice?
Another thing that happened yesterday was that Trump Inc. and its CFO were indicted by the Manhattan DA. They will be announcing the details today. So there's also that.
But this still sucks, because the Cosby fans who don't know any better will say that justice has been served and they're going to be loud about it all over social media and aaaarrrrggggghhhh.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 3:53 AM on July 1, 2021 [8 favorites]
Another thing that happened yesterday was that Trump Inc. and its CFO were indicted by the Manhattan DA. They will be announcing the details today. So there's also that.
But this still sucks, because the Cosby fans who don't know any better will say that justice has been served and they're going to be loud about it all over social media and aaaarrrrggggghhhh.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 3:53 AM on July 1, 2021 [8 favorites]
Noted conservative moralist released for prison, just in time for a position in the 2025 Trump cabinet.
posted by acb at 4:08 AM on July 1, 2021
posted by acb at 4:08 AM on July 1, 2021
> He's far from vindicated, his legacy is tarnished and he'll never work again.
He's 83 years old, well past retirement age, and while he's no longer the world's wealthiest entertainer he's still holding onto hundreds of millions of dollars. He can cry about the unfairness of the world from his Pebble Beach mansion while a retinue of assistants attend to his needs.
posted by at by at 5:04 AM on July 1, 2021 [9 favorites]
He's 83 years old, well past retirement age, and while he's no longer the world's wealthiest entertainer he's still holding onto hundreds of millions of dollars. He can cry about the unfairness of the world from his Pebble Beach mansion while a retinue of assistants attend to his needs.
posted by at by at 5:04 AM on July 1, 2021 [9 favorites]
How disgusting, especially for the women he drugged and abused. No justice here.
posted by mermayd at 5:14 AM on July 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by mermayd at 5:14 AM on July 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
It's a little perverse that common law systems seem to respond to prosecutorial or police misconduct not by punishing the prosecutors or police but by letting criminals go free.
Why do we do it that way?
I've heard it explained that it's so that prosecutors and police aren't motivated to violate people's rights. But... wouldn't it be just as effective a motivation to simply punish a prosecutor or police officer if they violate someone's rights?
What's the history here?
posted by clawsoon at 5:20 AM on July 1, 2021 [5 favorites]
Why do we do it that way?
I've heard it explained that it's so that prosecutors and police aren't motivated to violate people's rights. But... wouldn't it be just as effective a motivation to simply punish a prosecutor or police officer if they violate someone's rights?
What's the history here?
posted by clawsoon at 5:20 AM on July 1, 2021 [5 favorites]
As much as I deeply want to believe in the nebulous conception of the rule of law, and the idea that doing things right and behaving in a way according to what the general idea of law and the correct concepts of the world, I am confronted time and again with perversions of that ideal.
If, after admitting to having drugged and raped countless women, a conviction upon those ground is overturnable upon the barest concept of a pinky swear, then, if I might be so bold, the structure that allows such outlandish bullshit that is not, nor has ever been afforded to the poor or non-wealthy, is at best inherently unjust, at worst, as far beyond the concept of justice as is reasonable to expect.
posted by Ghidorah at 5:21 AM on July 1, 2021 [20 favorites]
If, after admitting to having drugged and raped countless women, a conviction upon those ground is overturnable upon the barest concept of a pinky swear, then, if I might be so bold, the structure that allows such outlandish bullshit that is not, nor has ever been afforded to the poor or non-wealthy, is at best inherently unjust, at worst, as far beyond the concept of justice as is reasonable to expect.
posted by Ghidorah at 5:21 AM on July 1, 2021 [20 favorites]
What's the history here?
The history here is a bunch of people who didn't commit crimes got locked up, while being called criminals, because a trial declared them to be guilty, based on false testimonies, faked evidence or denial of their basic rights.
Society rules people have rights. If those rights are denied in the process of showing them to be criminals, then they haven't really been shown to be criminals. They haven't had due process.
Your way would mean that the police and prosecutors could do just about anything to get someone banged up, and once someone was found guilty they would be locked up for their whole sentence, whether they did it or not. Whatever other facts came to light.
posted by biffa at 5:39 AM on July 1, 2021 [11 favorites]
The history here is a bunch of people who didn't commit crimes got locked up, while being called criminals, because a trial declared them to be guilty, based on false testimonies, faked evidence or denial of their basic rights.
Society rules people have rights. If those rights are denied in the process of showing them to be criminals, then they haven't really been shown to be criminals. They haven't had due process.
Your way would mean that the police and prosecutors could do just about anything to get someone banged up, and once someone was found guilty they would be locked up for their whole sentence, whether they did it or not. Whatever other facts came to light.
posted by biffa at 5:39 AM on July 1, 2021 [11 favorites]
May he swiftly follow Rumsfeld into the ninth circle of hell, but not before he sees his worldly legacy disappear slowly and painfully.
Then again, Satan probably won't want either of those two as company.
posted by Sheydem-tants at 5:47 AM on July 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
Then again, Satan probably won't want either of those two as company.
posted by Sheydem-tants at 5:47 AM on July 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
We probably need to get used to correcting people with 'rapist Bill Cosby' whenever they say his name.
posted by Flight Hardware, do not touch at 5:53 AM on July 1, 2021 [9 favorites]
posted by Flight Hardware, do not touch at 5:53 AM on July 1, 2021 [9 favorites]
We probably need to get used to correcting people with 'rapist Bill Cosby' whenever they say his name.
Admitted rapist Bill Cosby.
posted by Gelatin at 5:56 AM on July 1, 2021 [66 favorites]
Admitted rapist Bill Cosby.
posted by Gelatin at 5:56 AM on July 1, 2021 [66 favorites]
It's a little perverse that common law systems seem to respond to prosecutorial or police misconduct not by punishing the prosecutors or police but by letting criminals go free.
Funny thing how prosecutors make case invalidating 'mistakes' in cases with rich and politically connected people so remarkably often and just how quickly they concede those errors when in cases with the poor and unclouted they double and triple down on defending egregious and obvious miscarriages.
posted by srboisvert at 5:56 AM on July 1, 2021 [28 favorites]
Funny thing how prosecutors make case invalidating 'mistakes' in cases with rich and politically connected people so remarkably often and just how quickly they concede those errors when in cases with the poor and unclouted they double and triple down on defending egregious and obvious miscarriages.
posted by srboisvert at 5:56 AM on July 1, 2021 [28 favorites]
This is a thread focusing on how people without obscene wealth are almost never granted near-immediate release upon the overturning of a conviction, highlighting dozens of people ordered released only for someone in charge to say, hmm, nah, I’m not interested in following a court order. Many of these cases are focused on people who died awaiting release, yet Cosby was out of prison within a couple hours.
posted by Ghidorah at 5:57 AM on July 1, 2021 [42 favorites]
posted by Ghidorah at 5:57 AM on July 1, 2021 [42 favorites]
So to summarize, this is definitely either
a) A necessary if painful concession to a greater justice that transcends one man's prosecution
ANDor
b) a completely and obviously fucked-up corrupt concession to a wealthy and well-connected individual
Cognitive dissonance is the secret ingredient for a good fpp.
posted by otherchaz at 5:57 AM on July 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
a) A necessary if painful concession to a greater justice that transcends one man's prosecution
AND
b) a completely and obviously fucked-up corrupt concession to a wealthy and well-connected individual
Cognitive dissonance is the secret ingredient for a good fpp.
posted by otherchaz at 5:57 AM on July 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
Ghidorah, I can’t see the original tweet. Privacy restrictions.
posted by computech_apolloniajames at 6:03 AM on July 1, 2021
posted by computech_apolloniajames at 6:03 AM on July 1, 2021
Phylicia Rashad tweeted "FINALLY!!!! A terrible wrong is being righted- a miscarriage of justice is corrected!"
After an outcry, she has tried to walk it back, saying she supports survivors of sexual assault. What I don't get about her original tweet is that Cosby admitted it. What does she think the miscarriage of justice is? The conviction or prosecutorial misconduct?
posted by FencingGal at 6:08 AM on July 1, 2021 [15 favorites]
After an outcry, she has tried to walk it back, saying she supports survivors of sexual assault. What I don't get about her original tweet is that Cosby admitted it. What does she think the miscarriage of justice is? The conviction or prosecutorial misconduct?
posted by FencingGal at 6:08 AM on July 1, 2021 [15 favorites]
Bye, Phylicia.
posted by condour75 at 6:21 AM on July 1, 2021 [42 favorites]
posted by condour75 at 6:21 AM on July 1, 2021 [42 favorites]
Yesterday was a big day for people who should have died in prison but didn’t.
posted by mikesch at 6:41 AM on July 1, 2021 [16 favorites]
posted by mikesch at 6:41 AM on July 1, 2021 [16 favorites]
Phylicia Rashad tweeted
At her third wedding, Cosby walked her down the aisle and O.J. Simpson was Ahmad’s best man. Great memories in those wedding photos, I’m sure.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 6:51 AM on July 1, 2021 [13 favorites]
At her third wedding, Cosby walked her down the aisle and O.J. Simpson was Ahmad’s best man. Great memories in those wedding photos, I’m sure.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 6:51 AM on July 1, 2021 [13 favorites]
Oh Bruce Castor! Donald Trump's second impeachment lawyer. Let me refresh your memory:
posted by adept256 at 6:54 AM on July 1, 2021 [7 favorites]
I'll be quite frank with you, we changed what we were going to do on account that we thought that the House manager's presentation was well done, and I wanted you to know that we have responses to those things. I thought that what the first part of the case was, which was the equivalent of a motion to dismiss, was going to be about jurisdiction alone and one of the fellows who spoke for the House managers, was a former criminal defense attorney, seemed to suggest that there's something nefarious that we were discussing jurisdiction and trying to get the case dismissed, but this is where it happens in the case because jurisdiction is the first thing that has to be found.Raskin pre-empted all of Castor's legal arguments, systematically destroying them one by one. So Castor had to make up a new line of bullshit on the spot, and it showed, it really showed. Luckily for him his only real job was to provide an atom-thin veneer of legal justification for republican senators to vote not guilty. He was that guy.
posted by adept256 at 6:54 AM on July 1, 2021 [7 favorites]
biffa: Your way would mean that the police and prosecutors could do just about anything to get someone banged up, and once someone was found guilty they would be locked up for their whole sentence, whether they did it or not. Whatever other facts came to light.
Why would that follow, though? Couldn't you have a system where police and prosecutors are punished for violating rights, and people who are found to not be guilty are freed?
I'll admit I've never thought this through before, because I always previously accepted the logic that letting guilty people go free is punishment enough for police officers and prosecutors. Now I'm... not sure?
posted by clawsoon at 7:01 AM on July 1, 2021 [2 favorites]
Why would that follow, though? Couldn't you have a system where police and prosecutors are punished for violating rights, and people who are found to not be guilty are freed?
I'll admit I've never thought this through before, because I always previously accepted the logic that letting guilty people go free is punishment enough for police officers and prosecutors. Now I'm... not sure?
posted by clawsoon at 7:01 AM on July 1, 2021 [2 favorites]
I came across this story while I was searching for Castor's impeachment defense;
Convict's DNA Sways Labs, Not a Determined Prosecutor (nyt)
What a peice of shit. Fuck this guy.
posted by adept256 at 7:35 AM on July 1, 2021 [53 favorites]
Convict's DNA Sways Labs, Not a Determined Prosecutor (nyt)
In May 1987, Bruce Godschalk, 26, who had been working for a landscaper, was convicted of both rapes, largely on the basis of a confession to detectives that he recanted long before his trial. He was sentenced to 10 to 20 years in prison.DNA Testing In Rape Cases Frees Prisoner After 15 Years (nyt)
Recent tests by two laboratories hired by the prosecution and the defense came up with the same results: both rapes were committed by the same man, and that man was not Bruce Godschalk.
Even so, the Montgomery County district attorney, Bruce L. Castor Jr., whose office convicted Mr. God schalk, has refused to let Mr. God schalk out of prison, saying he believes that Mr. Godschalk is guilty and that the DNA testing is flawed.
Asked what scientific basis he had for concluding that the testing was flawed, Mr. Castor said in an interview today: ''I have no scientific basis. I know because I trust my detective and my tape-recorded confession. Therefore the results must be flawed until someone proves to me otherwise.''
The Montgomery County district attorney, Bruce L. Castor Jr., continued to resist Mr. Godschalk's release, saying that he believed the DNA testing was flawed and that he needed time to confirm the results. Today, after further testing did just that, he wrote to Judge S. Gerald Corso of Common Pleas Court suggesting that Mr. Godschalk be released immediately.So this is Bruce Castor. He rejects the DNA evidence to put an innocent man in prison, for rape, for fifteen years. Also Bruce Castor: celebrating notorious rapist Bill Cosby freed on a technicality. Happens to be Trump's chief defender too.
''I am not convinced that Bruce Godschalk is innocent,'' Mr. Castor said. ''But I do not think there is sufficient evidence to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt, and in this business a tie goes to the defendant.''
Mr. Godschalk was released on a wintry evening, but to him it might have been spring: ''It's beautiful,'' he said. ''I'm noticing colors. When you're confined, you don't see colors. You see the same color: gray.''
What a peice of shit. Fuck this guy.
posted by adept256 at 7:35 AM on July 1, 2021 [53 favorites]
I always previously accepted the logic that letting guilty people go free is punishment enough for police officers and prosecutors.
It's strange to frame this in terms of punishing the police/prosecutors because the justification, at least theoretically, has always been about a person's fundamental rights. As a citizen you are guaranteed certain rights against government abuse. If the state brings its power to bear against you, it must abide by those rights. If it doesn't, if a cop conducts an illegal search or a prosecutor commits misconduct, then its use of power against you should be void. The potential for a guilty person to go free is part of the price for requiring those rights to be respected.
There may be consequential or utilitarian arguments regarding this threat of a guilty person going free keeping cops/prosecutors in line, but those are ultimately secondary concerns.
posted by star gentle uterus at 7:38 AM on July 1, 2021 [9 favorites]
It's strange to frame this in terms of punishing the police/prosecutors because the justification, at least theoretically, has always been about a person's fundamental rights. As a citizen you are guaranteed certain rights against government abuse. If the state brings its power to bear against you, it must abide by those rights. If it doesn't, if a cop conducts an illegal search or a prosecutor commits misconduct, then its use of power against you should be void. The potential for a guilty person to go free is part of the price for requiring those rights to be respected.
There may be consequential or utilitarian arguments regarding this threat of a guilty person going free keeping cops/prosecutors in line, but those are ultimately secondary concerns.
posted by star gentle uterus at 7:38 AM on July 1, 2021 [9 favorites]
The fuckups in this case are just breathtaking. First, Castor apparently offered immunity from prosecution because he felt he couldn't succeed at his job of getting criminal justice. I mean at least he gave the civil case some help, maybe that compromise made sense to someone at the time, but it sure looks awful now. Third, Castor now is celebrating this all, as if he's forgotten entirely who created the disaster and what his job originally was.
But the second fuckup is amazing too; the supposed prosecution deal was never in writing. Nor was the victim and her legal team informed. Quoth the NYT
posted by Nelson at 7:39 AM on July 1, 2021 [12 favorites]
But the second fuckup is amazing too; the supposed prosecution deal was never in writing. Nor was the victim and her legal team informed. Quoth the NYT
There was no formal, written non-prosecution agreement — just the terse news release — and Ms. Constand and her lawyers have said they were not told of any promise or deal.No wonder it's hard to get victims to testify when the prosecution is so incompetent.
Against that backdrop, a legal dispute arose over whether Mr. Castor had in fact offered a binding promise that Mr. Cosby would never be charged — and, if he did, whether he had the authority to do so.
posted by Nelson at 7:39 AM on July 1, 2021 [12 favorites]
sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice criminally negligent malice
posted by lalochezia at 7:46 AM on July 1, 2021 [19 favorites]
posted by lalochezia at 7:46 AM on July 1, 2021 [19 favorites]
There may be consequential or utilitarian arguments regarding this threat of a guilty person going free keeping cops/prosecutors in line, but those are ultimately secondary concerns.Also, utilitarianism works against civil rights here, because there will always be plenty of cops willing to martyr themselves. They'll willingly enter into a devil's bargain of ends justifying means in order to convict someone. They'll commit acts they know are punishable, just to make sure the "guilty" person goes to jail too.
posted by Horkus at 8:07 AM on July 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
Mod note: One deleted, don't troll here, period.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 8:09 AM on July 1, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 8:09 AM on July 1, 2021 [4 favorites]
Horkus: there will always be plenty of cops willing to martyr themselves.
I wonder, though... will there? Isn't a point of the "blue wall of silence", a characteristic feature of police organizations, to ensure that officers have maximal protection against martyrdom if they keep silent, and maximal chance of martyrdom if they speak up? Its strength suggests to me that avoiding martyrdom is one of the strongest motivations for police officers. I could well be wrong. I'd be interested to know who else has theorized about this before.
posted by clawsoon at 8:22 AM on July 1, 2021 [4 favorites]
I wonder, though... will there? Isn't a point of the "blue wall of silence", a characteristic feature of police organizations, to ensure that officers have maximal protection against martyrdom if they keep silent, and maximal chance of martyrdom if they speak up? Its strength suggests to me that avoiding martyrdom is one of the strongest motivations for police officers. I could well be wrong. I'd be interested to know who else has theorized about this before.
posted by clawsoon at 8:22 AM on July 1, 2021 [4 favorites]
I'll admit I've never thought this through before, because I always previously accepted the logic that letting guilty people go free is punishment enough for police officers and prosecutors. Now I'm... not sure?
All people being investigated have certain rights, governing amongst other things, how they are investigated, how they are legally represented, how the court case is run, etc. If the state can make a case and persuade a jury they have committed a crime, they are convicted as criminals.
If it turns out their rights were abused, for example, say they were forced to give an untrue confession, or the police made up or hid evidence or prevented witnesses coming to court, or straight up lied about what they did or said then the conviction as criminals is unsafe. They haven't had a fair trial. So the process by which they came to be convicted as criminals is no longer valid.
So when abuse of the process come to light they let the person out. Because the process can no longer be assumed to be a legitimate one. They don't let the person out to punish the police or lawyers who abused the process, but because the process of their conviction, the process by which they came to be labelled as criminals can't be relied upon. Now some of them may be innocent and some may be guilty. We let them all out because the process of justice can no longer be held to be just. Who would decide? If the process of conviction can be shown to be invalid what reason is there to keep someone in prison? There is no higher power, that says, that one is guilty and should stay in, despite the abuse of their rights, and that one is innocent, despite a similar abuse, so they can go free.
posted by biffa at 8:30 AM on July 1, 2021 [13 favorites]
All people being investigated have certain rights, governing amongst other things, how they are investigated, how they are legally represented, how the court case is run, etc. If the state can make a case and persuade a jury they have committed a crime, they are convicted as criminals.
If it turns out their rights were abused, for example, say they were forced to give an untrue confession, or the police made up or hid evidence or prevented witnesses coming to court, or straight up lied about what they did or said then the conviction as criminals is unsafe. They haven't had a fair trial. So the process by which they came to be convicted as criminals is no longer valid.
So when abuse of the process come to light they let the person out. Because the process can no longer be assumed to be a legitimate one. They don't let the person out to punish the police or lawyers who abused the process, but because the process of their conviction, the process by which they came to be labelled as criminals can't be relied upon. Now some of them may be innocent and some may be guilty. We let them all out because the process of justice can no longer be held to be just. Who would decide? If the process of conviction can be shown to be invalid what reason is there to keep someone in prison? There is no higher power, that says, that one is guilty and should stay in, despite the abuse of their rights, and that one is innocent, despite a similar abuse, so they can go free.
posted by biffa at 8:30 AM on July 1, 2021 [13 favorites]
star gentle uterus: If the state brings its power to bear against you, it must abide by those rights. If it doesn't, if a cop conducts an illegal search or a prosecutor commits misconduct, then its use of power against you should be void.
I see how that works theoretically. Sort of? Hmm. It's part of the justification that I've always vaguely accepted before without really thinking it through.
But it seems like something about this doesn't work out when we compare the cases of Bill Cosby and Bruce Godschalk, doesn't it?
I know that the history comes out of trying to find ways to reduce torture and privacy violations and whatnot by the state, and that is a laudable goal which we've mostly(?) achieved.
Are there any other systems which have accomplished the same thing without the whole letting-Cosby-go-free thing? Is this the only way to do it?
posted by clawsoon at 8:34 AM on July 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
I see how that works theoretically. Sort of? Hmm. It's part of the justification that I've always vaguely accepted before without really thinking it through.
But it seems like something about this doesn't work out when we compare the cases of Bill Cosby and Bruce Godschalk, doesn't it?
I know that the history comes out of trying to find ways to reduce torture and privacy violations and whatnot by the state, and that is a laudable goal which we've mostly(?) achieved.
Are there any other systems which have accomplished the same thing without the whole letting-Cosby-go-free thing? Is this the only way to do it?
posted by clawsoon at 8:34 AM on July 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
clawsoon: I don't think we have the same definition of martyr?
posted by Horkus at 8:35 AM on July 1, 2021
posted by Horkus at 8:35 AM on July 1, 2021
Horkus: clawsoon: I don't think we have the same definition of martyr?
Someone who does something which they know will cause harm to themself, and they do it based on some conviction they hold? So in one system a martyr might be a police officer who is willing to violate rights even though they'll be punished for it because they hold the conviction that they have 100% identified a guilty person and it is 100% just and right for that person to go to jail. And in another system a martyr might be a police officer who violates the blue wall of silence by publicly releasing details about the misconduct of other officers because they believe it's the right thing to do, even though they know they'll be punished by the organization. Does that align our definitions any better?
Thanks for the thoughtful responses from everyone, BTW. They're helping me think through something I've never really thought through before.
posted by clawsoon at 8:42 AM on July 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
Someone who does something which they know will cause harm to themself, and they do it based on some conviction they hold? So in one system a martyr might be a police officer who is willing to violate rights even though they'll be punished for it because they hold the conviction that they have 100% identified a guilty person and it is 100% just and right for that person to go to jail. And in another system a martyr might be a police officer who violates the blue wall of silence by publicly releasing details about the misconduct of other officers because they believe it's the right thing to do, even though they know they'll be punished by the organization. Does that align our definitions any better?
Thanks for the thoughtful responses from everyone, BTW. They're helping me think through something I've never really thought through before.
posted by clawsoon at 8:42 AM on July 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
Here's the full text of the judgement. (Warning, contains description of sexual assault). In my experience it's always worth reading the original judgment rather than relying on media reports.
The important points on my reading is that Cosby was forced to give depositions that incriminated him in the civil case, and he would not have been had there not been the statement from Castor that he would not be prosecuted, and that Castor had intended this result to give Constand's civil case a better chance of success.
The depositions in the civil case were used, in part, to secure a criminal conviction after another D.A. decided to re-open the case against Cosby. Deliberately or no, the actions of the prosecution created a situation where Cosby was denied his rights under the fifth amendment, and the court held that this due process violation was broad enough to require the sentence be vacated.
The issue with the opposite position, that since it was not a formal agreement in writing it should not have been relied upon has problems. The immediate problem being that, according to the record described in the judgement, the decision not to prosecute was intended to and in effect did remove Cosby's fifth amendment rights. It's hard to then turn around and say "well, tough, you should have realized it wasn't a formal agreement" after the fact.
The larger being that if accepted it would create every incentive for a prosecutor to deliberately flaw or otherwise compromise their agreements with defendants. Effectively, it's arguing that even if a statement or agreement was used to compel self-incriminating testimony, the fact that the form of the agreement was not correct means that the defendant has no recourse for the removal of their fifth amendment rights.
clawsoon: As far as I know, yes. Because to keep Cosby in jail you have to be willing to say "Yes your rights were violated, but we know you're guilty, so fuck your rights."
Which may sound reasonable, but think about that word "know". People knew satanic ritual abuse was a problem. People knew witches were a problem. People knew 'superpredators' were a problem. People know all kinds of shit in general and specific, that is just that, total shit. Hell, Castor knew Godschalk was guilty. If "I know you're guilty" was enough, Godschalk never would have been let free.
posted by Grimgrin at 8:46 AM on July 1, 2021 [12 favorites]
The important points on my reading is that Cosby was forced to give depositions that incriminated him in the civil case, and he would not have been had there not been the statement from Castor that he would not be prosecuted, and that Castor had intended this result to give Constand's civil case a better chance of success.
The depositions in the civil case were used, in part, to secure a criminal conviction after another D.A. decided to re-open the case against Cosby. Deliberately or no, the actions of the prosecution created a situation where Cosby was denied his rights under the fifth amendment, and the court held that this due process violation was broad enough to require the sentence be vacated.
The issue with the opposite position, that since it was not a formal agreement in writing it should not have been relied upon has problems. The immediate problem being that, according to the record described in the judgement, the decision not to prosecute was intended to and in effect did remove Cosby's fifth amendment rights. It's hard to then turn around and say "well, tough, you should have realized it wasn't a formal agreement" after the fact.
The larger being that if accepted it would create every incentive for a prosecutor to deliberately flaw or otherwise compromise their agreements with defendants. Effectively, it's arguing that even if a statement or agreement was used to compel self-incriminating testimony, the fact that the form of the agreement was not correct means that the defendant has no recourse for the removal of their fifth amendment rights.
clawsoon: As far as I know, yes. Because to keep Cosby in jail you have to be willing to say "Yes your rights were violated, but we know you're guilty, so fuck your rights."
Which may sound reasonable, but think about that word "know". People knew satanic ritual abuse was a problem. People knew witches were a problem. People knew 'superpredators' were a problem. People know all kinds of shit in general and specific, that is just that, total shit. Hell, Castor knew Godschalk was guilty. If "I know you're guilty" was enough, Godschalk never would have been let free.
posted by Grimgrin at 8:46 AM on July 1, 2021 [12 favorites]
So this is Bruce Castor. He rejects the DNA evidence to put an innocent man in prison, for rape, for fifteen years.
And never forget than in doing so, he allowed the guilty man to go free.
I'm seeing a pattern here.
posted by Gelatin at 8:47 AM on July 1, 2021 [6 favorites]
And never forget than in doing so, he allowed the guilty man to go free.
I'm seeing a pattern here.
posted by Gelatin at 8:47 AM on July 1, 2021 [6 favorites]
Are there any other systems which have accomplished the same thing without the whole letting-Cosby-go-free thing? Is this the only way to do it?
Well it's a throwing the baby out with the bathwater and a slippery slope thing all at once. If a defendant can't trust the prosecutorial discretion when accepting an offer then they won't accept offers if a prosecutor can go back on it later. The point isn't whether it's guilty or not guilty, it's that Cosby was (apparently, I'm not even sure how legit this whole verbal pinky swear is) coerced into confessing in the civil trial on the grounds that he wouldn't be prosecuted. Finality is a powerful coercive tool. If a prosecutor goes back on one deal and the justice system gives the all clear, what's to stop prosecutors going back on any potential deal? Nobody would take a deal and it's basically a bell that can't be unrung.
Ultimately two things need to be worked out here as well. Why the fuck did this come up after the trial and everything else had been settled? Two, why the hell wasn't this offer in writing? I've seen the courts literally tell defendants that their right to remain silent doesn't apply if they only remain silent, they need to positively assert the right and this fucker gets immunity because of a press release and a verbal promise inferring some magical 5th amendment protection all of a sudden?
On the face of it this doesn't pass the smell test.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 8:53 AM on July 1, 2021 [4 favorites]
Well it's a throwing the baby out with the bathwater and a slippery slope thing all at once. If a defendant can't trust the prosecutorial discretion when accepting an offer then they won't accept offers if a prosecutor can go back on it later. The point isn't whether it's guilty or not guilty, it's that Cosby was (apparently, I'm not even sure how legit this whole verbal pinky swear is) coerced into confessing in the civil trial on the grounds that he wouldn't be prosecuted. Finality is a powerful coercive tool. If a prosecutor goes back on one deal and the justice system gives the all clear, what's to stop prosecutors going back on any potential deal? Nobody would take a deal and it's basically a bell that can't be unrung.
Ultimately two things need to be worked out here as well. Why the fuck did this come up after the trial and everything else had been settled? Two, why the hell wasn't this offer in writing? I've seen the courts literally tell defendants that their right to remain silent doesn't apply if they only remain silent, they need to positively assert the right and this fucker gets immunity because of a press release and a verbal promise inferring some magical 5th amendment protection all of a sudden?
On the face of it this doesn't pass the smell test.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 8:53 AM on July 1, 2021 [4 favorites]
biffa: Because the process can no longer be assumed to be a legitimate one. They don't let the person out to punish the police or lawyers who abused the process, but because the process of their conviction, the process by which they came to be labelled as criminals can't be relied upon.
This seems reasonable to me in some ways, but it's making me think of a really interesting book which evilmonk recommended to me. As I read it, the liberal constitutionalists of 1848 failed because a) they thought that getting the process right was more important than addressing concrete problems, and b) the theoretically fair processes they came up with were remarkably advantageous to their interests and detrimental to everyone else's. It feels like both of those problems have gotten baked into common law legal systems. (And baked in by basically the same upper middle class social group as the 1848 constitutionalists.)
In both cases, it feels like aristocratic/state abuses are corrected in practise just to the point where well-off upper middle class people have maximal protection against state overreach and for everybody else it's hit-and-miss.
posted by clawsoon at 9:01 AM on July 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
This seems reasonable to me in some ways, but it's making me think of a really interesting book which evilmonk recommended to me. As I read it, the liberal constitutionalists of 1848 failed because a) they thought that getting the process right was more important than addressing concrete problems, and b) the theoretically fair processes they came up with were remarkably advantageous to their interests and detrimental to everyone else's. It feels like both of those problems have gotten baked into common law legal systems. (And baked in by basically the same upper middle class social group as the 1848 constitutionalists.)
In both cases, it feels like aristocratic/state abuses are corrected in practise just to the point where well-off upper middle class people have maximal protection against state overreach and for everybody else it's hit-and-miss.
posted by clawsoon at 9:01 AM on July 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
He rejects the DNA evidence to put an innocent man in prison, for rape, for fifteen years.
No, he tried rejecting new DNA evidence brought to light fifteen years later that exonerated the innocent man who had been in prison. While those are kind of identical from Godschalk's POV (he's innocent and spent 15 years in prison), they are very much not the same thing.
posted by hanov3r at 9:05 AM on July 1, 2021
No, he tried rejecting new DNA evidence brought to light fifteen years later that exonerated the innocent man who had been in prison. While those are kind of identical from Godschalk's POV (he's innocent and spent 15 years in prison), they are very much not the same thing.
posted by hanov3r at 9:05 AM on July 1, 2021
Your Childhood Pet Rock: If a prosecutor goes back on one deal and the justice system gives the all clear, what's to stop prosecutors going back on any potential deal? Nobody would take a deal and it's basically a bell that can't be unrung.
Aren't deals with prosecutors often seen as a weird American thing that mostly have justice-distorting effects and which have mostly spread to other jurisdictions because they save money?
posted by clawsoon at 9:09 AM on July 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
Aren't deals with prosecutors often seen as a weird American thing that mostly have justice-distorting effects and which have mostly spread to other jurisdictions because they save money?
posted by clawsoon at 9:09 AM on July 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
Clawsoon: None of the justice systems in use across the planet are perfect. They all screw up, even where they act in good faith. One goal of a justice system should be to minimise the screw ups and to maximise justice. They screw up more where some actors operate on bad faith.
I'm sure that there are inequalities baked into many systems, on class as you mention, on wealth (this is becoming an increasing problem in the UK system where I live), on race, religion, caste, etc. That's not a reason to abandon the protections and ensure fair process. Having some injustice baked into the system is not solved by wider injustice.
posted by biffa at 9:11 AM on July 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
I'm sure that there are inequalities baked into many systems, on class as you mention, on wealth (this is becoming an increasing problem in the UK system where I live), on race, religion, caste, etc. That's not a reason to abandon the protections and ensure fair process. Having some injustice baked into the system is not solved by wider injustice.
posted by biffa at 9:11 AM on July 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
biffa: That's not a reason to abandon the protections and ensure fair process.
Abandoning protections and fair process is not my goal, for sure. I'm just looking at some obvious injustices produced by the process and wondering if there are any better ways to ensure fairness and good process than what we've got now. The goal is not to bake more injustice into the system, but to find more or better ways to remove injustices from the system.
Thanks for your thoughtful responses on this.
posted by clawsoon at 9:22 AM on July 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
Abandoning protections and fair process is not my goal, for sure. I'm just looking at some obvious injustices produced by the process and wondering if there are any better ways to ensure fairness and good process than what we've got now. The goal is not to bake more injustice into the system, but to find more or better ways to remove injustices from the system.
Thanks for your thoughtful responses on this.
posted by clawsoon at 9:22 AM on July 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
Grimgrin: clawsoon: As far as I know, yes. Because to keep Cosby in jail you have to be willing to say "Yes your rights were violated, but we know you're guilty, so fuck your rights." Which may sound reasonable, but think about that word "know".
That makes total sense to me in the context of torture both producing unreliable evidence and being a violation of rights.
posted by clawsoon at 9:28 AM on July 1, 2021
That makes total sense to me in the context of torture both producing unreliable evidence and being a violation of rights.
posted by clawsoon at 9:28 AM on July 1, 2021
I'd caution anyone arguing "but the procedures are important and rights of the accused matter" to consider a little emotional balance in how they're saying that. I agree with the principle and in many other cases of police and DA abuse I'd be right there arguing the rights of the accused are paramount. But in this particular case it seems very clear that Cosby is guilty of rape, many rapes. It's very emotionally upsetting, difficult to accept. It proves that our adherence to the letter of this law sometimes leads to injustice. Maybe there's no solution for this problem, human foibles are complex, but that doesn't make it "right".
I'll say out loud the other complex aspects here we're all thinking about. First it's rape and sexual assault of a man victimizing women. That's a kind of crime that the whole world does a terrible job of getting justice for the victims. In part because many victims believe the system is stacked against them, and here we have evidence of exactly that happening. Second, it's a case where a wealthy man is apparently getting a special kind of extra justice because he can afford great lawyers and is a celebrity. Most accused criminals get nothing like this kind of help. Third, Cosby is a Black man. In general our justice system greatly abuses the rights of Black men and doesn't give them any sort of fairness. The whole system is biased towards putting Black men in prison, often innocent men. Cosby (and OJ) are exceptions to that pattern, I think in both cases because their wealth and fame trump their race. I don't come to any conclusions from these three complexities, I just wanted to articulate them.
I also want to reiterate again just how badly the Los Angeles prosecutors have served justice here. They mishandled this case in 2005 and again in 2016. I'm particularly outraged by the NYT's report that Constand was neither consulted nor notified of the prosecutor's decision to not pursue criminal charges in 2005. Here she is putting herself out there, willing to testify, looking for justice. And the dimwit prosecutor Castor just makes the decision to eliminate any possibility of criminal justice for her by cutting some poorly defined deal. The reporting all frames this as a favor Castor did for Constand, helping her in her civil case. I wonder how she feels about that.
There are sixty women on the record accusing Cosby of sexually assaulting or raping them between 1965 and 2008. As the reporting indicates it's unlikely he will be criminally charged for any of them now because Castor ruined the case.
posted by Nelson at 9:36 AM on July 1, 2021 [12 favorites]
I'll say out loud the other complex aspects here we're all thinking about. First it's rape and sexual assault of a man victimizing women. That's a kind of crime that the whole world does a terrible job of getting justice for the victims. In part because many victims believe the system is stacked against them, and here we have evidence of exactly that happening. Second, it's a case where a wealthy man is apparently getting a special kind of extra justice because he can afford great lawyers and is a celebrity. Most accused criminals get nothing like this kind of help. Third, Cosby is a Black man. In general our justice system greatly abuses the rights of Black men and doesn't give them any sort of fairness. The whole system is biased towards putting Black men in prison, often innocent men. Cosby (and OJ) are exceptions to that pattern, I think in both cases because their wealth and fame trump their race. I don't come to any conclusions from these three complexities, I just wanted to articulate them.
I also want to reiterate again just how badly the Los Angeles prosecutors have served justice here. They mishandled this case in 2005 and again in 2016. I'm particularly outraged by the NYT's report that Constand was neither consulted nor notified of the prosecutor's decision to not pursue criminal charges in 2005. Here she is putting herself out there, willing to testify, looking for justice. And the dimwit prosecutor Castor just makes the decision to eliminate any possibility of criminal justice for her by cutting some poorly defined deal. The reporting all frames this as a favor Castor did for Constand, helping her in her civil case. I wonder how she feels about that.
There are sixty women on the record accusing Cosby of sexually assaulting or raping them between 1965 and 2008. As the reporting indicates it's unlikely he will be criminally charged for any of them now because Castor ruined the case.
posted by Nelson at 9:36 AM on July 1, 2021 [12 favorites]
My google-fu is failing me at the moment: where can one find a transcript (or even summary) of Cosby's testimony in the civil suit?
posted by Saxon Kane at 9:50 AM on July 1, 2021
posted by Saxon Kane at 9:50 AM on July 1, 2021
nevermind, found it, sorry
posted by Saxon Kane at 9:52 AM on July 1, 2021
posted by Saxon Kane at 9:52 AM on July 1, 2021
I read about this and thought about it until steam came out of my ears and I can't even
posted by Catblack at 9:58 AM on July 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by Catblack at 9:58 AM on July 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
Cool justice system, I really like the way it's broken on every level from top to bottom, especially the top though.
posted by GoblinHoney at 10:21 AM on July 1, 2021 [7 favorites]
posted by GoblinHoney at 10:21 AM on July 1, 2021 [7 favorites]
In both cases, it feels like aristocratic/state abuses are corrected in practise just to the point where well-off upper middle class people have maximal protection against state overreach and for everybody else it's hit-and-miss.
doesn’t that come into it as soon as you have the option to pay for a lawyer (or several)?
posted by atoxyl at 10:27 AM on July 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
doesn’t that come into it as soon as you have the option to pay for a lawyer (or several)?
posted by atoxyl at 10:27 AM on July 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
Cool justice system, I really like the way it's broken on every level from top to bottom, especially the top though.
I'd say it's the opposite, really.
On the injustice scale, the fact that a rich guilty person can occasionally have a conviction overturned due to prosecutorial misconduct because he can afford the best lawyers is far outweighed by the fact that hundreds of poor people get locked up every day despite prosecutorial and police misconduct simply because they can't afford to hire a defense attorney at all, let alone a good one.
posted by Atom Eyes at 10:32 AM on July 1, 2021 [5 favorites]
I'd say it's the opposite, really.
On the injustice scale, the fact that a rich guilty person can occasionally have a conviction overturned due to prosecutorial misconduct because he can afford the best lawyers is far outweighed by the fact that hundreds of poor people get locked up every day despite prosecutorial and police misconduct simply because they can't afford to hire a defense attorney at all, let alone a good one.
posted by Atom Eyes at 10:32 AM on July 1, 2021 [5 favorites]
This is oddly similar to Polanski's situation. He surrendered himself to a mental hospital for evaluation on the promise from the judge that if they found him fit, he'd consider the time in the hospital his sentence. The judge was convinced Polanski would be found insane/psychotic that they'd never let him go. Doctors said he was fine -- he walked. Judge, furious, decides to ignore his own end of the bargain and instead throw the book at Polanski.
Only difference here is Polanski got wind of it and fled so the judge didn't have a chance to do it.
posted by dobbs at 10:51 AM on July 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
Only difference here is Polanski got wind of it and fled so the judge didn't have a chance to do it.
posted by dobbs at 10:51 AM on July 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
I can't believe that Cosby stopped raping the moment he had the plea deal. Any case thereafter is still fair game, no?
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 11:21 AM on July 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 11:21 AM on July 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
The most shocking thing is that the prosecutor remembered a verbal agreement years later and was absolutely certain that the unwritten agreement was so ironclad as to prevent any future prosecution. Can you imagine a poor person, not famous getting the same treatment form this former prosecutor.
posted by interogative mood at 11:22 AM on July 1, 2021 [18 favorites]
posted by interogative mood at 11:22 AM on July 1, 2021 [18 favorites]
Bill Cosby, successful rapist.
posted by mazola at 11:25 AM on July 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by mazola at 11:25 AM on July 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
I can't believe that Cosby stopped raping the moment he had the plea deal. Any case thereafter is still fair game, no?
Who's likely to come forward, after this?? Note the FPP's title: "Bill Cosby free, now and forever."
posted by Iris Gambol at 11:39 AM on July 1, 2021 [4 favorites]
Who's likely to come forward, after this?? Note the FPP's title: "Bill Cosby free, now and forever."
posted by Iris Gambol at 11:39 AM on July 1, 2021 [4 favorites]
The most shocking thing is that the prosecutor remembered a verbal agreement years later and was absolutely certain that the unwritten agreement was so ironclad as to prevent any future prosecution.
This was certainly the highest profile case of his career. The inability to pursue a conviction on what seemed so open-and-shut in the court of public opinion had to be a real blow to his ego.
It does not seem implausible in the slightest that he'd have some pretty vibrant memories of how it went down in the end. It also is quite likely to have been documented in his notes somewhere. Just because there wasn't a formal agreement on paper that was signed doesn't mean that it wasn't documented in case files, or perhaps a personal diary.
You are right that he likely wouldn't have remembered it as well if the defendant weren't famous, but that could have just as easily cut the other way against Cosby if the facts of the matter were different.
posted by explosion at 11:41 AM on July 1, 2021
This was certainly the highest profile case of his career. The inability to pursue a conviction on what seemed so open-and-shut in the court of public opinion had to be a real blow to his ego.
It does not seem implausible in the slightest that he'd have some pretty vibrant memories of how it went down in the end. It also is quite likely to have been documented in his notes somewhere. Just because there wasn't a formal agreement on paper that was signed doesn't mean that it wasn't documented in case files, or perhaps a personal diary.
You are right that he likely wouldn't have remembered it as well if the defendant weren't famous, but that could have just as easily cut the other way against Cosby if the facts of the matter were different.
posted by explosion at 11:41 AM on July 1, 2021
I can't believe that Cosby stopped raping the moment he had the plea deal
I agree. But the list of accusers on Wikipedia shows only one accusation dated after Constand's in 2004: a 2008 case. "In 2016, an announcement was made that no charges would be laid because of inadequate evidence and the expiration of the statute of limitations."
FWIW there's 4 accusations from 2000 or after, 56 from before. Sixty victims on the record.
posted by Nelson at 11:47 AM on July 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
I agree. But the list of accusers on Wikipedia shows only one accusation dated after Constand's in 2004: a 2008 case. "In 2016, an announcement was made that no charges would be laid because of inadequate evidence and the expiration of the statute of limitations."
FWIW there's 4 accusations from 2000 or after, 56 from before. Sixty victims on the record.
posted by Nelson at 11:47 AM on July 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
Mod note: 2 comments removed. Making light jokes about this is not OK.
posted by loup (staff) at 12:40 PM on July 1, 2021 [6 favorites]
posted by loup (staff) at 12:40 PM on July 1, 2021 [6 favorites]
The most shocking thing is that the prosecutor remembered a verbal agreement years later and was absolutely certain that the unwritten agreement was so ironclad as to prevent any future prosecution.
At the time (2005), Castor issued a press release saying that Cosby would not be charged. So it’s very much part of the public record.
posted by mr_roboto at 12:46 PM on July 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
At the time (2005), Castor issued a press release saying that Cosby would not be charged. So it’s very much part of the public record.
posted by mr_roboto at 12:46 PM on July 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
I do not know anything about the Cosby case, or the Britney Spears case, but there is a lot of frustration online right now at the notion that Cosby should be released on the same day that Spears's father's conservatorship over her should be reaffirmed.
Twin reminders that the United States of America has a legal system, not a justice system.
Maybe someday...
posted by MrJM at 12:47 PM on July 1, 2021 [7 favorites]
Twin reminders that the United States of America has a legal system, not a justice system.
Maybe someday...
posted by MrJM at 12:47 PM on July 1, 2021 [7 favorites]
At the time (2005), Castor issued a press release saying that Cosby would not be charged. So it’s very much part of the public record.
Here's the press release in question.
It is absolutely announcing an agreement or promise not to prosecute. It says the investigation didn't find sufficient evidence to warrant a conviction, so the prosecutor chooses not to proceed at this time.
It even goes on to "caution all parties" that the decision will be reconsidered "should the need arise."
posted by mark k at 1:25 PM on July 1, 2021
Here's the press release in question.
It is absolutely announcing an agreement or promise not to prosecute. It says the investigation didn't find sufficient evidence to warrant a conviction, so the prosecutor chooses not to proceed at this time.
It even goes on to "caution all parties" that the decision will be reconsidered "should the need arise."
posted by mark k at 1:25 PM on July 1, 2021
[Oops--big typo above. The press release was NOT announcing a promise not to posecute.]
posted by mark k at 1:44 PM on July 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by mark k at 1:44 PM on July 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
mark k: The court's judgement talks about that press release, the trial court had read it as you did: Determining that the press release did not indicate a permanent decision not to prosecute, and therefore should not have been relied upon to remove Cosby's fifth amendment rights.
- The trial court’s narrow interpretation of “this decision” is possible only when this sentence is read in isolation. The court ignored what came before and after, omitting all relevant and necessary context. The entire passage reads as follows:
- Because a civil action with a much lower standard for proof is possible, the District Attorney renders no opinion concerning the credibility of any party involved so as to not contribute to the publicity and taint potential jurors. The District Attorney does not intend to expound publicly on the details of his decision for fear that his opinions and analysis might be given undue weight by jurors in any contemplated civil action District Attorney Castor cautions all parties to this matter that he will reconsider this decision should the need arise. Much exists in this investigation that could be used (by others) to portray persons on both sides of the issue in a less than flattering light. The District Attorney encourages the parties to resolve their dispute from this point forward with a minimum of rhetoric.
Aren't deals with prosecutors often seen as a weird American thing that mostly have justice-distorting effects and which have mostly spread to other jurisdictions because they save money?
If there's anything "uniquely American" about plea bargains & deals, it's the systemic racism, which is what creates the justice-distorting effects - namely, we plea bargain because our court and jail systems are massively overwhelmed, because we prosecute tons of black and brown people all out of proportion to the crimes they may commit, and a ton of those crimes only really happen because of the cycles of poverty caused by the systemic racism in . . . well, the rest of American society. (viz. the "War On Drugs".)
letting guilty people go free is punishment enough for police officers and prosecutors.
Um. I've known a few cops and holy shit this is not at all how they think. I mean, I guess in a VERY abstract way you could kinda maybe sorta see how a non-cop would think that a cop & prosecutor is being "punished" if they screw up enough that a genuinely guilty person walks, but man oh man, as far as the cops are concerned on a personal level they don't feel "punished" at all - what they feel is cynically resigned and resentful that a justice system that they are 110% convinced exists primarily to fuck over the police by letting guilty people go or serve virtually no time has, once again, fucked over the police.
posted by soundguy99 at 4:47 PM on July 1, 2021 [4 favorites]
If there's anything "uniquely American" about plea bargains & deals, it's the systemic racism, which is what creates the justice-distorting effects - namely, we plea bargain because our court and jail systems are massively overwhelmed, because we prosecute tons of black and brown people all out of proportion to the crimes they may commit, and a ton of those crimes only really happen because of the cycles of poverty caused by the systemic racism in . . . well, the rest of American society. (viz. the "War On Drugs".)
letting guilty people go free is punishment enough for police officers and prosecutors.
Um. I've known a few cops and holy shit this is not at all how they think. I mean, I guess in a VERY abstract way you could kinda maybe sorta see how a non-cop would think that a cop & prosecutor is being "punished" if they screw up enough that a genuinely guilty person walks, but man oh man, as far as the cops are concerned on a personal level they don't feel "punished" at all - what they feel is cynically resigned and resentful that a justice system that they are 110% convinced exists primarily to fuck over the police by letting guilty people go or serve virtually no time has, once again, fucked over the police.
posted by soundguy99 at 4:47 PM on July 1, 2021 [4 favorites]
The Root has a couple of articles on the Cosby news. Bill Cosby Celebrates Technicality-Based Prison Release; Howard University and Janet Hubert Respond to Phylicia Rashad. And It Hurts When It's One of Your Own (about Phylicia Rashad).
posted by Nelson at 4:53 PM on July 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by Nelson at 4:53 PM on July 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
More useful context, this from 2015: ‘I’m No Longer Afraid’: 35 Women Tell Their Stories About Being Assaulted by Bill Cosby, and the Culture That Wouldn’t Listen. I'd love to read a followup with these women today. Actually I wouldn't, I imagine it'd be heartbreaking. But important.
posted by Nelson at 5:14 PM on July 1, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by Nelson at 5:14 PM on July 1, 2021 [2 favorites]
From Nelson's "Howard University and Janet Hubert..." link, w/emphasis:
“The Cosby ruling demonstrates how failures in our criminal justice systems make accountability for sexual assault impossible. Questionable non-prosecution agreements are only one problem. Also troubling is the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s ruling left open the question of whether evidence provided by five women to show a pattern of abuse was admissible. For decades, victims and survivors have called for reform in the way sexual assault cases are handled by police and prosecutors. But the dire need for improvement to our systems isn’t limited to criminal prosecutions. Sexual assault, harassment and extortion happens in workplaces every day. Systems that ensure accountability for powerful abusers, protect workers and prevent agreements that shield abusers are urgently needed in entertainment and other industries.” - Anita Hill, Chair of The Hollywood Commission
posted by Iris Gambol at 5:26 PM on July 1, 2021 [5 favorites]
“The Cosby ruling demonstrates how failures in our criminal justice systems make accountability for sexual assault impossible. Questionable non-prosecution agreements are only one problem. Also troubling is the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s ruling left open the question of whether evidence provided by five women to show a pattern of abuse was admissible. For decades, victims and survivors have called for reform in the way sexual assault cases are handled by police and prosecutors. But the dire need for improvement to our systems isn’t limited to criminal prosecutions. Sexual assault, harassment and extortion happens in workplaces every day. Systems that ensure accountability for powerful abusers, protect workers and prevent agreements that shield abusers are urgently needed in entertainment and other industries.” - Anita Hill, Chair of The Hollywood Commission
posted by Iris Gambol at 5:26 PM on July 1, 2021 [5 favorites]
If the state brings its power to bear against you, it must abide by those rights. If it doesn't, if a cop conducts an illegal search or a prosecutor commits misconduct, then its use of power against you should be void.
A case that really sticks in my craw in this regard is the murder of Rekia Boyd by Dante Sevrin where it really looks like he was mischarged so that the case could be dropped due to a technicality and a cop who just outright murdered someone could get off scot-free.
posted by srboisvert at 6:18 PM on July 1, 2021 [2 favorites]
A case that really sticks in my craw in this regard is the murder of Rekia Boyd by Dante Sevrin where it really looks like he was mischarged so that the case could be dropped due to a technicality and a cop who just outright murdered someone could get off scot-free.
posted by srboisvert at 6:18 PM on July 1, 2021 [2 favorites]
I'd love to read a followup with these women today. Actually I wouldn't, I imagine it'd be heartbreaking. But important.
Guess what I found (Washington Post).
posted by jenfullmoon at 9:09 PM on July 1, 2021 [2 favorites]
Guess what I found (Washington Post).
posted by jenfullmoon at 9:09 PM on July 1, 2021 [2 favorites]
There's an article in LGBTQ Nation on Andrea Constand.
posted by Flight Hardware, do not touch at 8:35 AM on July 2, 2021
posted by Flight Hardware, do not touch at 8:35 AM on July 2, 2021
This video is part of an interview Tom Mesereau, Cosby's attorney, gave in May. He states that the judge at the trial had lost the election for prosecutor to the man who decided not to charge Cosby in 2005. So the judge's decision to unseal the civil case, and that the former prosecutor's promise was invalid, were driven by spite.
posted by riruro at 7:40 PM on July 2, 2021
posted by riruro at 7:40 PM on July 2, 2021
Rashad has now sent a letter to students at Howard. "Participate in trainings" sounds like it wasn't exactly her idea.
From the article: Over the next few weeks, Rashad said she plans "to engage in active listening and participate in trainings to not only reinforce University protocol and conduct, but also to learn how I can become a stronger ally to sexual assault survivors and everyone who has suffered at the hands of an abuser."
posted by FencingGal at 6:39 AM on July 3, 2021 [1 favorite]
From the article: Over the next few weeks, Rashad said she plans "to engage in active listening and participate in trainings to not only reinforce University protocol and conduct, but also to learn how I can become a stronger ally to sexual assault survivors and everyone who has suffered at the hands of an abuser."
posted by FencingGal at 6:39 AM on July 3, 2021 [1 favorite]
Rashad has got to be bringing in a lot of money to Howard because four days have passed and she's still a dean.
posted by rdr at 2:41 PM on July 4, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by rdr at 2:41 PM on July 4, 2021 [2 favorites]
While Rashad (once mentor to Chadwick Boseman) has done a ton of fundraising for her alma mater, she was only named to this post in May (with an effective date of July 1st). However: "... the actress still has a number of performing obligations -- including 'Creed' in 2022 -- so she will be allowed to balance her work in the acting world with her work as dean. Rashad's stated that she will be a 'working artist.'"
Perhaps the school is trying to arrange for a different dean before announcing Rashad's departure, or sometime in the coming year her acting obligations will become so 'demanding' that she'll step down? Cosby seems disinterested in helping his old friend:
Bill Cosby Says Howard University ‘Must Support’ Phylicia Rashad’s ‘Freedom of Speech’ in New Statement (Variety, July 4, 2021) “Howard University you must support ones Freedom of Speech (Ms. Rashad), which is taught or suppose to be taught everyday at that renowned law school, which resides on your campus,” Cosby said in the statement, which was issued via his spokesperson, Andrew Wyatt. Representatives for Howard University and Rashad did not immediately respond to Variety‘s request for comment. [...] “This mainstream media are the Insurrectionists, who stormed the Capitol. Those same Media Insurrectionists are trying to demolish the Constitution of these United State of America on this Independence Day,” Cosby wrote. “NO TECHNICALITY — IT’S A VIOLATION OF ONES RIGHTS & WE THE PEOPLE STAND IN SUPPORT OF MS. PHYLICIA RASHAD.”
posted by Iris Gambol at 4:34 PM on July 4, 2021
Perhaps the school is trying to arrange for a different dean before announcing Rashad's departure, or sometime in the coming year her acting obligations will become so 'demanding' that she'll step down? Cosby seems disinterested in helping his old friend:
Bill Cosby Says Howard University ‘Must Support’ Phylicia Rashad’s ‘Freedom of Speech’ in New Statement (Variety, July 4, 2021) “Howard University you must support ones Freedom of Speech (Ms. Rashad), which is taught or suppose to be taught everyday at that renowned law school, which resides on your campus,” Cosby said in the statement, which was issued via his spokesperson, Andrew Wyatt. Representatives for Howard University and Rashad did not immediately respond to Variety‘s request for comment. [...] “This mainstream media are the Insurrectionists, who stormed the Capitol. Those same Media Insurrectionists are trying to demolish the Constitution of these United State of America on this Independence Day,” Cosby wrote. “NO TECHNICALITY — IT’S A VIOLATION OF ONES RIGHTS & WE THE PEOPLE STAND IN SUPPORT OF MS. PHYLICIA RASHAD.”
posted by Iris Gambol at 4:34 PM on July 4, 2021
Oh god is Bill Cosby now going to be making proclamations about morality and politics again?
posted by Nelson at 6:32 PM on July 4, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by Nelson at 6:32 PM on July 4, 2021 [1 favorite]
Ghislaine Maxwell's lawyers cite Cosby case in bid to have sex trafficking charges dropped (NBC, July 3, 2021) Former Jeffrey Epstein confidant Ghislaine Maxwell should have several counts in the indictment against her dropped because she is in a "similar situation" to Bill Cosby, her attorneys said in a court filing late Friday. They argue that Maxwell, 59, who is alleged to have recruited teenage girls from the mid-1990s to 2004 for Epstein to sexually abuse, was covered by a nonprosecution agreement at the time she was charged.
posted by Iris Gambol at 12:31 PM on July 7, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by Iris Gambol at 12:31 PM on July 7, 2021 [1 favorite]
Ghislaine Maxwell should have several counts in the indictment against her dropped because she is in a "similar situation" to Bill Cosby, her attorneys said
As in, definitely a rapist but hard to prosecute? That's a bold move.
I don't think that the cases are similar, even so. The criminal conviction of Bill Cosby relied on his incriminating statements in an earlier civil trial. On appeal, it was successfully argued that he wouldn't have made those statements if the prosecutor hadn't declared that he was going to prosecute; if not for that, Cosby would have exercised his right to remain silent in the civil trial, and the statements would never have been made. Is Maxwell going to argue that a future criminal prosecution would necessarily rely on something like that? Is there, in fact, any statement which was extracted from her in such a way that its use would infringe her rights? I suspect not; this is a pretty weak analogy and its only merit seems to be that it's topical and might win her the support of famous figures like ... Bill Cosby.
posted by Joe in Australia at 10:57 PM on July 7, 2021 [1 favorite]
As in, definitely a rapist but hard to prosecute? That's a bold move.
I don't think that the cases are similar, even so. The criminal conviction of Bill Cosby relied on his incriminating statements in an earlier civil trial. On appeal, it was successfully argued that he wouldn't have made those statements if the prosecutor hadn't declared that he was going to prosecute; if not for that, Cosby would have exercised his right to remain silent in the civil trial, and the statements would never have been made. Is Maxwell going to argue that a future criminal prosecution would necessarily rely on something like that? Is there, in fact, any statement which was extracted from her in such a way that its use would infringe her rights? I suspect not; this is a pretty weak analogy and its only merit seems to be that it's topical and might win her the support of famous figures like ... Bill Cosby.
posted by Joe in Australia at 10:57 PM on July 7, 2021 [1 favorite]
Bill Cosby’s Publicist Plays in All Our Faces, Claims the Comic Is Already Working on a Comeback Comedy Tour and More
posted by Nelson at 5:13 PM on July 8, 2021
posted by Nelson at 5:13 PM on July 8, 2021
« Older That's chutzpah right there | Take the Broken Pieces of Another Thrill and Make... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by PinkMoose at 10:23 PM on June 30, 2021 [39 favorites]