Discussion
  • Read More
    bagoflettersHillary Crosley Coker
    2/02/16 12:58pm

    Jez lawyer types, I don’t know the EXACT terms of the deal but couldn’t the current district attorney argue that the since the deal was that the former district attorney wouldn’t prosecute him criminally the terms of the deal are still technically being kept? Like if Bruce Castor specifically said “I will never prosecute you” then Kevin Steele who never made that deal could technically say “I never said that I wouldn’t”

    Of course all of these technicalities get tossed out if the original terms of the deal were that the district attorney would never prosecute him, because then the deal is associated with the job and not the individual.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Cherith Cutestorybagofletters
      2/02/16 1:02pm

      Your right to not incriminate yourself is a Constitutional right and taken very seriously. The only way to get around it is if a prosecutor grants immunity. If they could get out of it with such an easy “gotcha” then the Constitutional right would essentially be meaningless. No way any court will allow that.

      It seems the question is whether there was ever a valid immunity in place, at all. But, if there was, then it will hold.

      Why a proscutor would grant immunity for a civil proceeding is just beyond contemplation for me. I don’t get it. The whole thing is really, really strange.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      bagoflettersCherith Cutestory
      2/02/16 1:11pm

      Thank you for explaining that so clearly, I’ll admit that I had to sit there and think about how to even phrase my question because the technicalities I was asking about were so minor I wasn’t sure if I was making sense.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Mr.Noir, Liberal Hippie KingHillary Crosley Coker
    2/02/16 12:52pm

    One down (Holtzclaw), two to go( Ghomeshi & Cosby)

    And the millions of other piece of shit rapists trying to get away with their crimes whether it be through money, fear, or a trick of procedure.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      tinfoilhattieMr.Noir, Liberal Hippie King
      2/02/16 12:59pm

      Sigh.

      http://www.feministcurrent.com/2016/01/29/wha...

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Mr.Noir, Liberal Hippie Kingtinfoilhattie
      2/02/16 1:08pm

      I really didn't need to read that

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    mscoffeeHillary Crosley Coker
    2/02/16 1:17pm

    I’m surprised the DA would testify... In my mind, whatever “deal” happened was tantamount to a plea deal, and usually any statement made during the course of a plea negotiation is inadmissible. BUT, I’m a civil/commercial litigator — any criminal lawyers here should chime in and set me straight!

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Cherith Cutestorymscoffee
      2/02/16 1:21pm

      I’m just spitballing here. I don’t know that it would count as a plea negotiations but if it does it should still be admissible to the question of whether he had immunity. Since he’s not testifying to material that goes toward his innocence or guilt just to the existence or non-existence of immunity it should be fine.

      He’s not actually revealing any admissions made during the plea process. He’s testifying to something else.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      mscoffeeCherith Cutestory
      2/02/16 1:59pm

      Good point. I knew I was missing something.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Cherith CutestoryHillary Crosley Coker
    2/02/16 1:00pm

    I can’t imagine that Bill Cosby’s attorneys would have allowed him to incriminate himself in the deposition if there was no immunity deal in place. But apparently there wasn’t an official one? The lawyers didn’t demand anything in writing? The whole thing is bizarre.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      norbiznessHillary Crosley Coker
      2/02/16 12:58pm

      As an attorney I can’t understand (1) the overreaching by the DA to an arena he technically had no jurisdiction (2) why on Earth Cosby would have taken/believed in the deal, unless it was to definitively remove the Fifth Amendment argument for not answering questions in the deposition. If anything Cosby should have wanted the charges lingering so he could have shut up all around.

      Reply
      <
      • Read More
        Cherith Cutestorynorbizness
        2/02/16 1:15pm

        Exactly! It’s crazy from both ends. Cosby has competent attorneys but they let some sort of quasi-verbal agreement be enough to waive the 5th? After decades of not admitting a thing they screw up that badly?

        And what does the prosecutor care if a civil proceeding goes forward? People will say he was trying to sabotage the prosecution case but he doesn’t have to try that hard! He could have just declined to prosecute and have that be that. No one cared in 2005.

        Reply
        <
      • Read More
        norbiznessCherith Cutestory
        2/02/16 1:17pm

        “As long as I can’t be prosecuted for this, one of my dozens of serial rapes, it’s all good. Of course when it gets out my name will be shit and no other prosecutor will ever drop a case involving me.” That’s Leonard Part 6-level reasoning there.

        Reply
        <
    • Read More
      poet522Hillary Crosley Coker
      2/02/16 12:55pm

      I’ve been following this (as much as my nausea will allow) in the local Philly papers and I just don’t know what to think at this point. My gut says that Caster knew exactly what he was doing when he made that deal (though local coverage keeps probing at whether the deal really exists, and apparently Caster keeps hedging about that). Maybe he didn’t think he could get a criminal conviction in 2005. I know that DAs like winning records, and going up against Cosby in his hometown could have been risky to Caster’s career a decade ago. Maybe he genuinely didn’t think that he could pin this on Cosby and urged the civil suit instead so that the victim could get something, even if it wasn’t a conviction. Or —and this is the sleaziest and IMO most likely possibility — Caster had no interest in prosecuting Bill Cosby and found a way to avoid doing so.

      I have no doubt that there will be commenters here who are far more informed than I, and I look forward to reading what you write. I just had to get this out somewhere.

      Reply
      <
      • Read More
        tinfoilhattiepoet522
        2/02/16 1:00pm

        I fear your last guess. I really do. I have no reason to believe that men in power actually care about prosecuting men for sexual assault.

        Reply
        <
    • Read More
      CaliforlifeHillary Crosley Coker
      2/02/16 1:49pm

      Self-serving: I want him convicted (to give the women seriously delayed justice), and soon, so I can stop those fuckers on facebook who defend him...

      Reply
      <
      • Read More
        FIGJAMHillary Crosley Coker
        2/02/16 3:15pm

        I’d like to see hidden camera footage of him walking around. Seems like every time he knows the camera is watching, he has people helping him around like he’s old and feeble. I suspect that’s an act.

        Reply
        <
        • Read More
          MariaVonTrappHillary Crosley Coker
          2/02/16 3:22pm

          “Castor is scheduled to take the stand as a defense witness”

          Wh— what. A former county prosecutor being called for the defense? That can’t be normal. Is the implication that he supports cosby’s innocence???

          Reply
          <
          • Read More
            SamHillary Crosley Coker
            2/02/16 12:57pm

            Honestly if he was told by the state that he couldn’t invoke his fifth amendment rights and THAT’S HOW THEY GOT THE TESTIMONY, they as painful as it is they shouldn’t be allowed to use it against him. That’s not how the constitution works.

            Reply
            <
            • Read More
              Country Mac's Ocular PatdownSam
              2/02/16 2:20pm

              Yeah, it is a shitty situation, but my read of it is that they gave him immunity based on lack of evidence which would then force him to at least get in trouble civilly. If that is the case, it would be super unconstitutional to go after him.

              Reply
              <
            • Read More
              SamCountry Mac's Ocular Patdown
              2/02/16 2:51pm

              The state fucked up, and I want him behind bars as much as anyone, but.... they literally told him he couldn't use the fifth since he was immune from prosecution. You cannot, CANNOT then turn around and burn him with his testimony. That's just straight up unconstitutional. Nice going, Pennsylvania. 🙄

              Reply
              <