[blueash]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

So, a criminal prosecutor agreed not to prosecute Cosby for a crime so that a plaintiff in a civil court case could get money from Cosby? That sounds like obstruction of justice and illegal. Why is a criminal prosecutor even involved in a civil court case?

The issue was the civil case brought by one of his victims. The prosecutor, named Bruce Castor [you can look him up, he's been in the news for more than the Cosby case] decided that this victim would be a poor witness and that he wouldn't be able to get a conviction of Cosby based on her testimony and actions. He then made a public statement that his office would not use anything from the civil trial deposition to prosecute Cosby. Why he said this I do not know, but it forced Cosby to not invoke the 5th amendment when questioned in his civil case. You cannot refuse to answer a question if you are not at risk of being charged with a crime. While Castor did not later charge Cosby, the prosecutors who replaced him in office did so. The Pennsylvania court by a 6-1 vote held that the immunity granted Cosby by Bruce Castor was binding.

You can read the actual court opinion on CNN HERE.
The introduction to the opinion states the facts clearly:

In 2005, Montgomery County District Attorney Bruce Castor learned that Andrea Constand had reported that William Cosby had sexually assaulted her in 2004 at his Cheltenham residence. Along with his top deputy prosecutor and experienced detectives, District Attorney Castor thoroughly investigated Constand’s claim. In evaluating the likelihood of a successful prosecution of Cosby, the district attorney foresaw difficulties with Constand’s credibility as a witness based, in part, upon her decision not to file a complaint promptly. D.A. Castor further determined that a prosecution would be frustrated because there was no corroborating forensic evidence and because testimony from other potential claimants against Cosby likely was inadmissible under governing laws of evidence. The collective weight of these considerations led D.A. Castor to conclude that, unless Cosby confessed, “there was insufficient credible and admissible evidence upon which any charge against Mr. Cosby related to the Constand incident could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Seeking “some measure of justice” for Constand, D.A. Castor decided that the Commonwealth would decline to prosecute Cosby for the incident involving Constand, thereby allowing Cosby to be forced to testify in a subsequent civil action, under penalty of perjury, without the benefit of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Unable to invoke any right not to testify in the civil proceedings, Cosby relied upon the district attorney’s declination and proceeded to provide four sworn depositions. During those depositions, Cosby made several incriminating statements. D.A. Castor’s successors did not feel bound by his decision, and decided to prosecute Cosby notwithstanding that prior undertaking. The fruits of Cosby’s reliance upon D.A. Castor’s decision Cosby’s sworn inculpatory testimony were then used by D.A. Castor’s successors against Cosby at Cosby’s criminal trial.