@gertrudecloset wrote:
@Stray wrote:
@gertrudecloset - I understand quite well ....I stated there was no written record as this wasn't a plea deal....certainly, he spoke in the presence of his attorneys & a prosecutor. A transcriber is present if it were a pled out. I did not follow the trial closely and was commenting on the decision which was correct, legally but there was sloppy case preparation which freed a guilty man. Having worked with victims And being one myself many years ago, I'm outraged. Justice was not served due to a technicality which is unconscionable. The technicality was a violation of his fifth. He believed he had an immunity deal and confessed; it didn't count for him but does for his many victims. I wasn't there so I'm not debating the issue on a shopping board as they are still researching legal papers relative to the trial....
@Stray It was a plea deal. He sang in civil court so he didn't have to stand trial in criminal court. That's a plea deal. No matter how you slice it. Plea = you give us something we'll give you something. Period. Period.
Visit this Article from the New York Times: (it's behind a paywall) but you may find it elsewhere.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which overturned Mr. Cosby's conviction, wrote that a “non-prosecution agreement” that had been struck with.......
No prosecution means no one would have appeared in court. Which then means, there would have been no transcriber. His Lawyers and the D.A. of PA struck the arrangement on his behalf. Agreement = deal.
@gertrudecloset -
in cases where deals are made to reduce the counts or not charge a suspect, it’s generally spelled out in excruciating detail on paper in a formal plea agreement with the terms often read in court. In other words, they make it crystal clear what the deal is to avoid ambiguity, challenges and further court proceedings.
Castor would have done better to stick to the norms that guide prosecutors rather than make an exception for Cosby, even if, as the attorney testified, it was to help his alleged victim get some redress. In the end, special justice was injustice.
Cosby was a "special defendant" with powerful lawyers with the world watching EXCEPT for me. This is a rare case and rare outcome. The day poor people get the same treatment as the rich & famous, our system would be just. This situation is "an agreement" & in violation of his fifth amendment rights against self incrimination when it was not honored. Cosby was under the impression he had "blanket immunity". Maybe the prosecutor was well meaning but this very rare situation backfired. There are many faults with our justice system and until everyone is treated equally, it's deficient and justice is not always served and in this case it wasn't. It's the only one we have and better than many other countries and it works but not always for the disadvantaged.
The law is always debatable and I speak for victims not criminals. I hope you never are one.
Blogs & Forums
