Bill cosby guilty

[cubby]

Hmm thats an interesting thought, but Im not sure it applies. If youre read your miranda rights and you waive them, you can confess, thats not self incriminating in a way that protected constitutionally, I dont think..

Exactly. Being read your Miranda rights, and the waiving them (there is usually a form to sign), then everything is admissible, and not self incriminating.

[Eugenik]

Exactly. Being read your Miranda rights, and the waiving them (there is usually a form to sign), then everything is admissible, and not self incriminating.

Thats without pointing out, that not being read your Miranda rights and then giving a confession, doesnt suddenly mean they cant press charges, or that you cant be prosecuted. It simply means that the information given during the interrogation is inadmissible. Other evidence can still be used going forward.

[Svifnymr]

But there literally was no actual agreement in writing - which is why we saw the trial happen. The issue whether the discussion surrounding the civil trial testimony constituted an agreement, because an actual one didn't exist.

From what I understand, the former DA specifically said he made the announcement to remove the ability of Cosby to claim the 5th in the Civil trial. I do not know if that statement was made to Cosby directly, or his rep's or the victim or whatnot. He nver made a deal with Cosby that there would be no prosecution in exchange for testimony, but he did make statements that there was no risk of incrimination because there was no possibility of a criminal trial.

- - - Updated - - -

Thats without pointing out, that not being read your Miranda rights and then giving a confession, doesnt suddenly mean they cant press charges, or that you cant be prosecuted. It simply means that the information given during the interrogation is inadmissible. Other evidence can still be used going forward.

The comparison in this case would be that he was not read his miranda rights, so the confession is not admissible. Without the confession, there is no case. I guess we'll see what the high courts decide, maybe.

[Egomaniac]

The comparison in this case would be that he was not read his miranda rights, so the confession is not admissible. Without the confession, there is no case. I guess we'll see what the high courts decide, maybe.

That wouldn't be the comparison.

Either he had a deal with the prosecution or he didn't. If he didn't...then he wasn't under any protection when he gave his testimony.

[Eugenik]

The comparison in this case would be that he was not read his miranda rights, so the confession is not admissible. Without the confession, there is no case. I guess we'll see what the high courts decide, maybe.

Is that true though? Theres no evidence against him without a confession? I dont think thats true.

- - - Updated - - -

That wouldn't be the comparison.

Either he had a deal with the prosecution or he didn't. If he didn't...then he wasn't under any protection when he gave his testimony.

This sounds more applicable.

[cubby]

From what I understand, the former DA specifically said he made the announcement to remove the ability of Cosby to claim the 5th in the Civil trial. I do not know if that statement was made to Cosby directly, or his rep's or the victim or whatnot. He nver made a deal with Cosby that there would be no prosecution in exchange for testimony, but he did make statements that there was no risk of incrimination because there was no possibility of a criminal trial.

And that's the issue - does a nonbinding, unwritten statement count as a waiver of future prosecution. It's interesting that the trial court thought it didn't, but then the PA SCOTUS overwhelmingly thought it did. If I had to bet right now, I would say SCOTUS either doesn't take up the case, or affirms the PA decision.

[Svifnymr]

That wouldn't be the comparison.

Either he had a deal with the prosecution or he didn't. If he didn't...then he wasn't under any protection when he gave his testimony.

Well, that's the entire point of the case before the courts, right? He would never have given his testimony if he was not assured, via the actions of the DA, that he had no risk of self-incrimination. The DA has even said as much that this is WHY he made the statement, so that Cosby did not have a 5th amendment protection and the victim could get something in civil settlement where a criminal case did not exist.
There was no written deal, but Cosby and the DA both believed they had the equivalent and acted on that, so the court must now decide (or fail to decide) whether that was a "deal" or just a lie well within legal constraints.
If the cops tell you "Miranda doesn't apply here because we can't use any of this against you", but even moreso since this is a public forum they used to do it, then it's more similar to them not reading you Miranda (or, more appropriately, reading it to you WRONG, which is also disqualifying).

- - - Updated - - -

Is that true though? Theres no evidence against him without a confession? I dont think thats true.

I don't think there was any evidence decades ago (and the DA at the time didn''t either, obviously), let alone recently when publicity leads to the case being raised. If there was other evidence, then they should have ruled a mistrial and done it all over again without the evidence of the testimony from the civil suit since it was gained in violation of the 5th amendment rights of Cosby (in theory!).

This sounds more applicable.

The issue is his 5th amendment rights in the civil case, either he had a deal and didn't have them, or he didn't have a deal and the statements were obtained fraudulently.

- - - Updated - - -

And that's the issue - does a nonbinding, unwritten statement count as a waiver of future prosecution. It's interesting that the trial court thought it didn't, but then the PA SCOTUS overwhelmingly thought it did. If I had to bet right now, I would say SCOTUS either doesn't take up the case, or affirms the PA decision.

Yeah, it'll be interesting to see. If it goes against Cosby, it could lead to being unable to compel self-incriminating testimony from anyone in a Civil case. They could always claim that any testimony could later be used against them even if a written deal for SOME immunity is present.

[Eugenik]

The issue is his 5th amendment rights in the civil case, either he had a deal and didn't have them, or he didn't have a deal and the statements were obtained fraudulently.

If he didnt have a deal, how would the statements he made in his civil case have been obtained fraudulently?

[cubby]

If he didnt have a deal, how would the statements he made in his civil case have been obtained fraudulently?

Just the wrong legal word - not fraudulently obtained, but inadmissible in court.

[Svifnymr]

If he didnt have a deal, how would the statements he made in his civil case have been obtained fraudulently?

The confession would have been obtained fraudulently, because they were only obtained by the deal that's not a deal. Not saying some legal definition of "fraud" per se, just using the word to explain why the confession would be inadmissable if there was no deal but he was made to believe there was.

[Eugenik]

The confession would have been obtained fraudulently, because they were only obtained by the deal that's not a deal. Not saying some legal definition of "fraud" per se, just using the word to explain why the confession would be inadmissable if there was no deal but he was made to believe there was.

Is one legally allowed to withhold evidence in civil court because it might incriminate them?

[Vegas82]

Is one legally allowed to withhold evidence in civil court because it might incriminate them?

Sure, you can plead the fifth in a civil case. It let’s others draw a negative inference though. And since the bar is a lot lower…

[Eugenik]

Sure, you can plead the fifth in a civil case. It let’s others draw a negative inference though. And since the bar is a lot lower…

So why would Cosby ever give testimony in a civil suit that would incriminate himself? Deal or no deal, pleading the 5th would be the lesser of two evils, would it not?

[Svifnymr]

So why would Cosby ever give testimony in a civil suit that would incriminate himself? Deal or no deal, pleading the 5th would be the lesser of two evils, would it not?

That's the stated goal of the original DA. You have the right to not incriminate yourself (in a CRIMINAL sense), so the DA said "there's no case, we're not doing anything". So, now, Cosby can't claim he has any risk of incriminating himself and has to testify. So if there's no deal, he would have claimed the fifth, if there is a deal, he cannot take the 5th. If he is lead to believe there is a deal, but it is not an actual deal, legally where does that leave us? That's what the court is deciding basically.

[Vegas82]

So why would Cosby ever give testimony in a civil suit that would incriminate himself? Deal or no deal, pleading the 5th would be the lesser of two evils, would it not?

Because he is a massive piece of shit who thought what he was doing was acceptable.

[cubby]

So why would Cosby ever give testimony in a civil suit that would incriminate himself? Deal or no deal, pleading the 5th would be the lesser of two evils, would it not?

Because the civil case was a suit for monetary damages. In those situation, if you plead the 5th, the suit doesn't go away. And, barring contrary testimony, the opposing side would typically win. So Cosby did what he did to mitigate the civil suit.

- - - Updated - - -

Because he is a massive piece of shit who thought what he was doing was acceptable.

Also this.

[Eugenik]

Because the civil case was a suit for monetary damages. In those situation, if you plead the 5th, the suit doesn't go away. And, barring contrary testimony, the opposing side would typically win. So Cosby did what he did to mitigate the civil suit.

But do you see where Im going with this? Hes going to lose the case if he testifies, or if he pleads the 5th. From a public relations stand point, even if criminal prosecution isnt in the forecast, it doesnt make sense to testify and not plead the 5th. Did he not have lawyers?

[cubby]

But do you see where Im going with this? Hes going to lose the case if he testifies, or if he pleads the 5th. From a public relations stand point, even if criminal prosecution isnt in the forecast, it doesnt make sense to testify and not plead the 5th. Did he not have lawyers?

I do see what you mean and where you are going. People who commit crimes and are facing the consequences have tough choices. Plead the 5th in a civil trial and lose but perhaps save yourself from criminal charges.

Best choice for Cosby was not to sexually assault and rape dozens of women.

[Eugenik]

I do see what you mean and where you are going. People who commit crimes and are facing the consequences have tough choices. Plead the 5th in a civil trial and lose but perhaps save yourself from criminal charges.

Best choice for Cosby was not to sexually assault and rape dozens of women.

Well, the options are plead the 5th and lose, or testify, incriminate yourself and lose. I dont see what he had to gain by testifying.

[cubby]

Well, the options are plead the 5th and lose, or testify, incriminate yourself and lose. I dont see what he had to gain by testifying.

And that's why we are where we are right now. Cosby might not have chosen to testify had he not been given an indication by the DA at the time that charges weren't able to be filed. The people who really screwed up are Cosby's attorneys. I'm surprised he isn't suing them for malpractice. They should have gotten something in writing.