I'm not extremely happy that someone who sexually assaulted young women had his conviction overturned, but I am glad to see that the court upheld an agreement with a prior prosecutor that shows the agreements follow the office not the person in the office.
DA said "We don't have enough to take it to trial. But if we can promise Cosby not that we won't prosecute, he can't rely on the 5th Amendment, and the plaintiff can depose him, and that might lead to justice for her."
So Cosby testified and ultimately paid the lady over $3 million.
Then the DA took his sworn statements and prosecuted him with them. It was a dirty move that got them 3 years of Cosby's life. Cosby can rot in hell, I don't care, but don't let DAs lie to defendants and get them to waive constitutional rights.
(1) That is how they got Capone. If they want you, they can get any person they want on a technical tax violation. Most people have no idea that every single tax return they file could be grounds for prosecution if they want you bad.
(2) Do not kid yourself. They are not done with Trump and the Trump Organization. By going after taxes, they are targeting Alan Weisselberg, CFO of the Trump Organization. If they can squeeze him and get him to roll, they believe he is the domino that they need to fall.
I don't like Trump. He's a shady character and unethical person. But I am confident that nobody in his family will face any kind of meaningful consequences as a result of the efforts by the Manhattan DA. Each twist and turn will delight his haters, but in the end, nothing happens. And I say this as a person who really really really dislikes all of the Trumps.
I don't like politicians. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Guest
Anonymous
June 30, 2021 6:07 pm
Bill Cosby's sexual assault conviction has been vacated after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court found that an agreement he made with a previous prosecutor should have precluded him from being charged in the case.
The court's judgment, handed down today, states Cosby, 83, "must be discharged [from prison], and any future prosecution on these particular charges must be barred."
Cosby's publicist, Andrew Wyatt, told ABC News he will pick Cosby up from prison within hours.
Cosby was convicted on three counts of aggravated indecent assault in 2018 after Andrea Constand said he had drugged her and sexually assaulted her in her Elkins Park, Pa., home in 2004.
Cosby had been sentenced to three to 10 years, and had served more than two years of that sentence.
Guest
Anonymous
June 30, 2021 7:27 pm
How long will it take Cosby to sue for malicious prosecution?
Gonna first have to get past the district attorney's immunity from suit. McCormick v. Specter, 220 Pa. 19, 275 A.2d 688 (1971); Durham v. McElynn, 565 Pa. 163, 772 A.2d 68 (2001).
I know of a condo complex near Miami that he can go relax and unwind for a while, it's dirt cheap right now.
Guest
Anonymous
June 30, 2021 8:46 pm
#freemoscowmitch
#freebonniebulla
#freecosby
Guest
Anonymous
June 30, 2021 9:26 pm
Seems to me like there's a pattern of overreach and misconduct by prosecutors. I've heard countless attorneys over the years say the DA here overcharges in order to force defendants to take plea deals. That appears to be a pattern with all prosecutor's offices. Then when they're faced with high profile cases that are actually being litigated, they mess up. There have been several high profile cases here that the prosecutors have screwed up. They screwed up Cosby's case so now that rapist gets to go free. They screwed up Casey Anthony's case and she's free.
Perhaps defense attorneys should all start demanding trials and just overwhelm the hell out of them. Force them to drop charges or actually prove their cases.
Anyways…that's the random thoughts by a non-crim defense attorney.
CCDA is nothing and I mean NOTHING compared to the AUSAs. But understand when you say "Demand trials" what you are saying is play Russian Roulette with their clients. Cosby's case was not a screwup; it is dirty. The Bundys were not a screw-up; it was dirty. These are not procedural errors. This is not Tommy Molto not being able to find the drinking glass. This is dirty.
The system has problems, sure. But the answer isn't having defense lawyers place their clients on the line, exposed to the Trial Tax, in order to serve some greater good and Fight the Power. The defense attorney is there to serve the client. The DAs are supposed to be seeking justice, not just a conviction rate.
The prosecutor gave Cosby immunity so he couldn't claim the 5th in the civil trial. The victim sued and got $3M. Then the new prosecutor used his admissions in the civil case to prosecute him. The higher court found that violated his due process rights and he was released. That's why it was dirty. The prosecutors f-ed it up.
Guest
Anonymous
June 30, 2021 9:40 pm
"Overcharging" really isn't a thing. For example, if a person takes property from another person by means of force, that's a robbery. A DA or AUSA could theoretically charge Murder, or Sexual Assault, or Burglary, or whatever based on those facts, but those charges have to be brought before a Grand Jury or a Justice Court judge at a prelim to see if there's evidence to support those charges. Obviously those three charges wouldn't get past those gatekeepers. In a civil context, it's no different than some dumdum naming 82 causes of action based on an auto negligence case. Charge or complain all you want, but whether it's via a motion to dismiss or by function of denial of charges by a neutral magistrate or grand jury, each charge that goes to trial has a factual basis.
A "pattern" isn't established by one or two cases out of the millions of other cases that were brought and resolved in that same time frame. The outlier cases just make the news.
@ 2:40 "'Overcharging' really isn't a thing"
Really?
You say that there must be some evidence. Well dear, A probable cause hearing has a really low bar, often only thinly supported by police testimony. Prosecuting offices nearly always charge the highest level of crime possible, then stipulate to a lower offense as a common practice. It makes the prosecutor's job easier and the stats look better.
@ 8:23 PM, what does "the highest level of crime" even mean? Are you saying that if someone is murdered, that prosecutors should only charge a suspect with misdemeanor battery? Or if a child is sexually assaulted, that prosecutors should only charge it as child endangerment? Or if someone steals a $250,000 diamond necklace at gunpoint, that it should be charged as a petit larceny? Facts of a case establish what crime was committed. There's a reasonable argument that some crimes aren't worthy of the full extent of punishment that corresponds to a particular crime, but that's why there are things like plea deals. Prosecutors give defendants a huge break in potential punishment in exchange for pleading guilty to some crime with far less potential punishment.
And as far as making the prosecutor's job easier, it makes EVERYONE's job easier. There were 195 murders ALONE last year in Vegas according to U.S. news. That's about 4 every week. There's no possible way that the Vegas courts, public defenders, or whomever else could take every one of those cases to trial in the same time, and that's JUST murders. Our justice system just isn't capable of taking every case to trial because there's no way the taxpayers would ever pay for the extraordinary costs of paying that many government employees to do that.
4:06– The argument that "Prosecutors give defendants a huge break in potential punishment in exchange for pleading guilty to some crime with far less potential punishment" is the equivalent of the IRS gives taxpayers a huge windfall by paying them back overcharged taxes. It was never legitimate to begin with so don't act like you are doing them a favor.
@ 5:56 I'm not sure if you understand how either taxes or the law in general works. First off your example isn't at all equivalent. Say you owe the IRS $100k in tax for a year. Then say a clerical error results in you being sent a tax bill for $1 mil. You pay the $1 mil. The IRS realizes its mistake and refunds you the overpayment. That's not them doing you a favor, it's them charging you the exact amount you actually owe. Your example would be equivalent of you owing the IRS $100k, but you call them up and offer to pay them $50.00 and call it a day. That would be the IRS doing you a favor, forgiving over $99k would be a huge windfall for you because you actually owed the $100k. That's the actual equivalency, e.g., you murdered someone but the prosecutor goes easy on you and convicts you of speeding in a school zone.
6:34– But you see you missed the point. The analogy is that a scuffle breaks out but no physical contact occurs. Prosecutors are charging aggravated assault, knowing that it will get pled down to Disturbing when the actual facts are that it was Disturbing all along. Your post assumes its predicate that the charges are accurate in the first place which is exactly what the posters above are showing you is wrong. Prosecutors charge as much as they can creatively concoct and then make the reasonable analysis at the Pretrial when justice would dictate that the reasonable analysis be made at the charging phase. Don't expect a pat on the back for doing in the end what you should have done in the first place.
@ 8:54 I think the problem here is that people keep making up conflicting and legally insufficient facts to support a narrative. If "a scuffle breaks out but no physical contact occurs" then that's a pretty vague set of facts. A "scuffle" is a physical fight, so your facts don't even fit your example. Assuming you meant an unarmed, aggressive verbal argument, at most that's "inciting breach of peace" which is a misdemeanor. You can't even get to "aggravated assault" without more serious actions, such as an assault that is committed with the intent to cause a serious bodily injury, or an assault that is committed with a deadly weapon such as a firearm. Facts matter because legal elements have to be satisfied to establish a crime. If those facts establish a particular crime, then that's what's taken to trial. This is basic 1L stuff here.
Take that attorney Robert Graham for example. He stole over $16 million from his clients in multiple different ways over the course of several years. He pled guilty to something like Theft, but each time he stole from each client he committed a crime. Theft doesn't even begin to cover the extent of the crimes he committed, but that's the deal he took.
Guest
Anonymous
July 1, 2021 2:12 am
With the passing of John Ascuaga, a good time to revisit a piece of Nevada legal history when the Government took on a big gold cock and lost.
HEY!!!! I just had the same thing happen in Federal Court. Said that the Opposing Counsel's attestation that my client resided at an address at which he did not reside trumped my client's Affidavit, my client's drivers license, my client's power bills, my client's voting records, Affidavits from other people who attested to my client's actual residence. Court said that Court believed the "officer of the court" and that service was not really essential.
To be fair, the case I am aware of in front of Dorsey went something like this: defective default judgment without notice. All subsequent "Notices" went to a bad address including the Notice of Entry of Default Judgment. When the defendant finally figures it out because they are being garnished, they rush into court and are told that good service/bad service does not matter because the court summarily finds that they would have lost anyway so service did not matter.
lol at the Kavanaugh concurrence.
"Yeah the CDC exceeded its authority but the moratorium is almost up, so, oh well."
Bill Cosby is free!
https://www.inquirer.com/news/bill-cosby-conviction-overturned-appeal-andrea-constand-20210630.html
WOW
The prosecutor agreed to not charge Cosby if he sat for a civil deposition? Dafuq?
Prosecutors screwed up.
I'm not extremely happy that someone who sexually assaulted young women had his conviction overturned, but I am glad to see that the court upheld an agreement with a prior prosecutor that shows the agreements follow the office not the person in the office.
Overturned after he served 3 years of a 3-10 year sentence. I think we can read between the lines.
Agreed with 10:54.
It's the right result, but not the "right" result. But that's how the system works.
DA said "We don't have enough to take it to trial. But if we can promise Cosby not that we won't prosecute, he can't rely on the 5th Amendment, and the plaintiff can depose him, and that might lead to justice for her."
So Cosby testified and ultimately paid the lady over $3 million.
Then the DA took his sworn statements and prosecuted him with them. It was a dirty move that got them 3 years of Cosby's life. Cosby can rot in hell, I don't care, but don't let DAs lie to defendants and get them to waive constitutional rights.
Better that a thousand rapists go free, than a prosecutor be permitted to commit a procedural error.
Have a Rapey day
something something due process
something something white christian males of good moral character
With the amount of resources the DA's office in NYC has expended investigating Trump and the Trump Organization, all they have to charge someone with is not paying taxes on fringe benefits? I guess they have to charge someone with something or they can't continue to justify their next fishing expedition to their taxpayers. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/30/trump-organization-expects-to-be-charged-thursday-in-manhattan-criminal-case.html
(1) That is how they got Capone. If they want you, they can get any person they want on a technical tax violation. Most people have no idea that every single tax return they file could be grounds for prosecution if they want you bad.
(2) Do not kid yourself. They are not done with Trump and the Trump Organization. By going after taxes, they are targeting Alan Weisselberg, CFO of the Trump Organization. If they can squeeze him and get him to roll, they believe he is the domino that they need to fall.
Show me the man, and I will find the crime….
I don't like Trump. He's a shady character and unethical person. But I am confident that nobody in his family will face any kind of meaningful consequences as a result of the efforts by the Manhattan DA. Each twist and turn will delight his haters, but in the end, nothing happens. And I say this as a person who really really really dislikes all of the Trumps.
I don't like Biden. He's a shady character who allows his son to shill him out for access/connection to power.
I don't like politicians. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Bill Cosby's sexual assault conviction has been vacated after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court found that an agreement he made with a previous prosecutor should have precluded him from being charged in the case.
The court's judgment, handed down today, states Cosby, 83, "must be discharged [from prison], and any future prosecution on these particular charges must be barred."
Cosby's publicist, Andrew Wyatt, told ABC News he will pick Cosby up from prison within hours.
Cosby was convicted on three counts of aggravated indecent assault in 2018 after Andrea Constand said he had drugged her and sexually assaulted her in her Elkins Park, Pa., home in 2004.
Cosby had been sentenced to three to 10 years, and had served more than two years of that sentence.
How long will it take Cosby to sue for malicious prosecution?
It is already typed, filed tomorrow, and then out for service.
Gonna first have to get past the district attorney's immunity from suit. McCormick v. Specter, 220 Pa. 19, 275 A.2d 688 (1971); Durham v. McElynn, 565 Pa. 163, 772 A.2d 68 (2001).
Is it absolute immunity or qualified immunity? Does it protect them from an 42 U.S.C. 1983 action?
I cannot believe this fucking happened. This pos raped over 60 women.
I know of a condo complex near Miami that he can go relax and unwind for a while, it's dirt cheap right now.
#freemoscowmitch
#freebonniebulla
#freecosby
Seems to me like there's a pattern of overreach and misconduct by prosecutors. I've heard countless attorneys over the years say the DA here overcharges in order to force defendants to take plea deals. That appears to be a pattern with all prosecutor's offices. Then when they're faced with high profile cases that are actually being litigated, they mess up. There have been several high profile cases here that the prosecutors have screwed up. They screwed up Cosby's case so now that rapist gets to go free. They screwed up Casey Anthony's case and she's free.
Perhaps defense attorneys should all start demanding trials and just overwhelm the hell out of them. Force them to drop charges or actually prove their cases.
Anyways…that's the random thoughts by a non-crim defense attorney.
CCDA is nothing and I mean NOTHING compared to the AUSAs. But understand when you say "Demand trials" what you are saying is play Russian Roulette with their clients. Cosby's case was not a screwup; it is dirty. The Bundys were not a screw-up; it was dirty. These are not procedural errors. This is not Tommy Molto not being able to find the drinking glass. This is dirty.
The system has problems, sure. But the answer isn't having defense lawyers place their clients on the line, exposed to the Trial Tax, in order to serve some greater good and Fight the Power. The defense attorney is there to serve the client. The DAs are supposed to be seeking justice, not just a conviction rate.
@ 2:31: What do you mean by "dirty"?
The prosecutor gave Cosby immunity so he couldn't claim the 5th in the civil trial. The victim sued and got $3M. Then the new prosecutor used his admissions in the civil case to prosecute him. The higher court found that violated his due process rights and he was released. That's why it was dirty. The prosecutors f-ed it up.
"Overcharging" really isn't a thing. For example, if a person takes property from another person by means of force, that's a robbery. A DA or AUSA could theoretically charge Murder, or Sexual Assault, or Burglary, or whatever based on those facts, but those charges have to be brought before a Grand Jury or a Justice Court judge at a prelim to see if there's evidence to support those charges. Obviously those three charges wouldn't get past those gatekeepers. In a civil context, it's no different than some dumdum naming 82 causes of action based on an auto negligence case. Charge or complain all you want, but whether it's via a motion to dismiss or by function of denial of charges by a neutral magistrate or grand jury, each charge that goes to trial has a factual basis.
A "pattern" isn't established by one or two cases out of the millions of other cases that were brought and resolved in that same time frame. The outlier cases just make the news.
Well, ackshually… Wow you're a condescending ass. Being right all the time must be such a burden.
@ 2:40 "'Overcharging' really isn't a thing"
Really?
You say that there must be some evidence. Well dear, A probable cause hearing has a really low bar, often only thinly supported by police testimony. Prosecuting offices nearly always charge the highest level of crime possible, then stipulate to a lower offense as a common practice. It makes the prosecutor's job easier and the stats look better.
@ 8:23 PM, what does "the highest level of crime" even mean? Are you saying that if someone is murdered, that prosecutors should only charge a suspect with misdemeanor battery? Or if a child is sexually assaulted, that prosecutors should only charge it as child endangerment? Or if someone steals a $250,000 diamond necklace at gunpoint, that it should be charged as a petit larceny? Facts of a case establish what crime was committed. There's a reasonable argument that some crimes aren't worthy of the full extent of punishment that corresponds to a particular crime, but that's why there are things like plea deals. Prosecutors give defendants a huge break in potential punishment in exchange for pleading guilty to some crime with far less potential punishment.
And as far as making the prosecutor's job easier, it makes EVERYONE's job easier. There were 195 murders ALONE last year in Vegas according to U.S. news. That's about 4 every week. There's no possible way that the Vegas courts, public defenders, or whomever else could take every one of those cases to trial in the same time, and that's JUST murders. Our justice system just isn't capable of taking every case to trial because there's no way the taxpayers would ever pay for the extraordinary costs of paying that many government employees to do that.
4:06– The argument that "Prosecutors give defendants a huge break in potential punishment in exchange for pleading guilty to some crime with far less potential punishment" is the equivalent of the IRS gives taxpayers a huge windfall by paying them back overcharged taxes. It was never legitimate to begin with so don't act like you are doing them a favor.
@ 5:56 I'm not sure if you understand how either taxes or the law in general works. First off your example isn't at all equivalent. Say you owe the IRS $100k in tax for a year. Then say a clerical error results in you being sent a tax bill for $1 mil. You pay the $1 mil. The IRS realizes its mistake and refunds you the overpayment. That's not them doing you a favor, it's them charging you the exact amount you actually owe. Your example would be equivalent of you owing the IRS $100k, but you call them up and offer to pay them $50.00 and call it a day. That would be the IRS doing you a favor, forgiving over $99k would be a huge windfall for you because you actually owed the $100k. That's the actual equivalency, e.g., you murdered someone but the prosecutor goes easy on you and convicts you of speeding in a school zone.
6:34– But you see you missed the point. The analogy is that a scuffle breaks out but no physical contact occurs. Prosecutors are charging aggravated assault, knowing that it will get pled down to Disturbing when the actual facts are that it was Disturbing all along. Your post assumes its predicate that the charges are accurate in the first place which is exactly what the posters above are showing you is wrong. Prosecutors charge as much as they can creatively concoct and then make the reasonable analysis at the Pretrial when justice would dictate that the reasonable analysis be made at the charging phase. Don't expect a pat on the back for doing in the end what you should have done in the first place.
@ 8:54 I think the problem here is that people keep making up conflicting and legally insufficient facts to support a narrative. If "a scuffle breaks out but no physical contact occurs" then that's a pretty vague set of facts. A "scuffle" is a physical fight, so your facts don't even fit your example. Assuming you meant an unarmed, aggressive verbal argument, at most that's "inciting breach of peace" which is a misdemeanor. You can't even get to "aggravated assault" without more serious actions, such as an assault that is committed with the intent to cause a serious bodily injury, or an assault that is committed with a deadly weapon such as a firearm. Facts matter because legal elements have to be satisfied to establish a crime. If those facts establish a particular crime, then that's what's taken to trial. This is basic 1L stuff here.
Take that attorney Robert Graham for example. He stole over $16 million from his clients in multiple different ways over the course of several years. He pled guilty to something like Theft, but each time he stole from each client he committed a crime. Theft doesn't even begin to cover the extent of the crimes he committed, but that's the deal he took.
With the passing of John Ascuaga, a good time to revisit a piece of Nevada legal history when the Government took on a big gold cock and lost.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._One_Solid_Gold_Object_in_Form_of_a_Rooster
"I fought the cock and the cock won."
Federal court ruled my client is not entitled to be served document. That is unconstitutional.
HEY!!!! I just had the same thing happen in Federal Court. Said that the Opposing Counsel's attestation that my client resided at an address at which he did not reside trumped my client's Affidavit, my client's drivers license, my client's power bills, my client's voting records, Affidavits from other people who attested to my client's actual residence. Court said that Court believed the "officer of the court" and that service was not really essential.
Never had a judge say this. Who is the idiot? This is 1L level idiocy.
Jennifer Dorsey
Dorsey has said this. Du has said this.
You are not allowed to be served documents? Wow, wtf? That violates due process .
That is lunacy. 30 years of practice, and I have never heard of a judge saying someone waz not entitled to service. Nuts!
Does Judge Jennifer Dorsey provide a reason why someone is not entitled to be served documents? I cannot wait to hear this one….
To be fair, the case I am aware of in front of Dorsey went something like this: defective default judgment without notice. All subsequent "Notices" went to a bad address including the Notice of Entry of Default Judgment. When the defendant finally figures it out because they are being garnished, they rush into court and are told that good service/bad service does not matter because the court summarily finds that they would have lost anyway so service did not matter.
No due process is not good. It is the minimum of what we are entitled to. Judges here think it is a frivolity.