[blueash]

Originally Posted by Becca9800

What I know is the 1st prosecutor states he didn't have evidence to convict, 1st trial ended w hung jury. Doesn't appear there was clear and convincing evidence of guilt, does there? 2nd trial was during the peak of the bullsh!t Me Too Movement and 50 more women come forward. What are the odds that all 50 experienced assault by BC and NONE of the 50 reported the event when it happened? 50. At the 2nd trial the "victim" beefed up the details of the alleged molestation, her testimony changed. At the 2nd trial the judge allowed 5 of those 50 accusers testify. None reported their assaults but they testified to it as if fact. I don't stand by BC, I stand with any person being accused decades later of a crime that may not have happened. Show me the proof. In this case, there wasn't the proof to send a man to prison. Ask any trial attorney if jurors tend to find with the facts or with their hearts.

FWIW, I think the 2nd prosecutor, the one who stepped all over BC's 5th A rights, should be criminally charged and civilly accountable. THAT should never be acceptable to any American citizen. Why aren't you concerned about that piece?

As you seem to be familiar with the details of the charges against Cosby, I wonder why you would cherry pick those details. Firstly. all of us should "stand with those accused" whether the alleged crime occurred decades ago or last week. That is the precious presumption of innocence which all defendants are granted. But there is a procedure under Pennsylvania law for the granting of immunity. It is encoded in the rules of the state and is certainly known to any prosecutor as to exactly what needs to be done to actually grant that immunity. You can read the details of what those requirements are in the court decision.

Bruce Castor completely ignored the rules and regulations for the grant of immunity which must be made in writing and signed. Immunity is NOT granted under the law of Pennsylvania by a prosecutor giving a press conference. So there was a real issue of law as to whether Cosby's statements in his depositions were somehow protected and whether or not he could have taken the 5th in those depositions. Again read the details in the court record. In fact this had already been litigated and the lower court held that there was NO promise of immunity and that Cosby's statements could be used against him. It was entirely reasonable for the later prosecutors to proceed with a trial given the opinion of the lower courts.


Please read the Penn Supreme Court's opinion on pages 26 - 27 which details the failures of Bruce Castor to follow the requirements of the law in the granting of immunity, if he intended to do so. And also explains that the victims attorney in the civil case never asked or was told that Cosby had been granted immunity:

As noted, the trial court denied the motion, finding that then-D.A. Castor never, in fact, reached an agreement with Cosby, or even promised Cosby that the Commonwealth would not prosecute him for assaulting Constand. T.C.O. at 62.
Instead, the trial court considered the interaction between the former district attorney and Cosby to be an incomplete and unauthorized contemplation of transactional immunity. The trial court found no authority for the “proposition that a prosecutor may unilaterally confer transactional immunity through a declaration as the sovereign.” Id. Rather, the court noted, such immunity can be conferred only upon strict compliance with Pennsylvania’s immunity statute, which is codified at 42 Pa.C.S. § 5947.14

Per the terms of the statute,

14 The immunity statute provides, in relevant part:
(a) General rule.--Immunity orders shall be available under this section in
all proceedings before:
(1) Courts.
* * *
(b) Request and issuance.--The Attorney General or a district attorney
may request an immunity order from any judge of a designated court, and
that judge shall issue such an order, when in the judgment of the Attorney
General or district attorney:
(1) the testimony or other information from a witness may be
necessary to the public interest; and
(2) a witness has refused or is likely to refuse to testify or provide
other information on the basis of his privilege against selfincrimination.[J-100-2020] - 28 permission from a court is a prerequisite to any offer of transactional immunity. See id.
§ 5947(b) (“The Attorney General or a district attorney may request an immunity order
from any judge of a designated court.”). Because D.A. Castor did not seek such
permission, and instead acted of his own volition, the trial court concluded that any
purported immunity offer was defective, and thus invalid. Consequently, according to the trial court, the “press release, signed or not, was legally insufficient to form the basis of an enforceable promise not to prosecute.” T.C.O. at 62.

The trial court also found that “Mr. Castor’s testimony about what he did and how
he did it was equivocal at best.” Id. at 63. The court deemed the former district attorney’s characterization of his decision-making and intent to be inconsistent, inasmuch as he testified at times that he intended transactional immunity, while asserting at other times that he intended use and derivative-use immunity. The trial court specifically credited Attorney Troiani’s statements that she never requested that Cosby be provided with immunity and that she did not specifically agree to any such offer.