Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What was the technicality?Guilty nonetheless. Released on a technicality, not innocence.
It's explained in the video. The DA told him what he would say in a civil trial could not be used in the criminal trial, and it was. The video's less than 3 minutes long.What was the technicality?
...and that DA and the judge did not get into trouble for their deception. That means they can do the same thing with no penalty times infinity.It's explained in the video. The DA told him what he would say in a civil trial could not be used in the criminal trial, and it was. The video's less than 3 minutes long.
If I'm not mistaken, I believe that DA was the same attorney who attempted to defend Trump, rather poorly, during the 2nd impeachment trial....and that DA and the judge did not get into trouble for their deception. That means they can do the same thing with no penalty times infinity.
And how is that a “technicality”? Pretty sure there were also other reasons the court vacated the conviction.It's explained in the video. The DA told him what he would say in a civil trial could not be used in the criminal trial, and it was. The video's less than 3 minutes long.
Nope, that's the reason.And how is that a “technicality”? Pretty sure there were also other reasons the court vacated the conviction.
He was.If I'm not mistaken, I believe that DA was the same attorney who attempted to defend Trump, rather poorly, during the 2nd impeachment trial.
Got only the prosecutors to blame for that.Guilty nonetheless. Released on a technicality, not innocence.
That ought to motivate women to speak up right away or concede.I wonder if another trial is pursued. In the first trial there was only one woman accuser, but there are several that came forward, will they now bring charges all witness. But I think there is a matter of statutes of limitation that may applicable.
It was one reason.Nope, that's the reason.
"Why did the court overturn the conviction?
Because prosecutors violated Mr. Cosby’s rights by reneging on an apparent promise not to charge him, the court majority ruled.
In 2005, Bruce L. Castor Jr., who was then the district attorney in Montgomery County, Pa., outside Philadelphia, issued a news release saying that he had declined to charge Mr. Cosby over the matter. Mr. Cosby then sat for depositions in a separate lawsuit filed against him by Ms. Constand, which he paid her $3.38 million to settle in 2006.
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
But a subsequent district attorney reversed Mr. Castor’s decision and charged the entertainer with assaulting Ms. Constand after all. In the trial, prosecutors used what Mr. Cosby had said in the deposition — his admission that in decades past, he had given quaaludes to women in an effort to have sex with them — as evidence against him.
“We hold that, when a prosecutor makes an unconditional promise of non-prosecution, and when the defendant relies upon that guarantee to the detriment of his constitutional right not to testify, the principle of fundamental fairness that undergirds due process of law in our criminal justice system demands that the promise be enforced,” wrote Justice David Norman Wecht."
Bill Cosby’s Release From Prison, Explained
It was the only reason.It was one reason.
There was some testimony about Cosby’s activities in the 70s too.It was the only reason.