Bill Cosby Not Guilty of Everything
The Bill Cosbay Appeal
This week an Appeal Court reversed the conviction of Bill Cosby in relation to a sexual assault a jury found him guilty of. I’ve read the decision and would like to explain to my readers why his appeal was successful.
Understandably the result must be devastating for the complainant (and other woman who testified) but nevertheless the the case is a shining example of fair reasoning by a court.
The Legal Issue
In the early 2000’s a complainant made a sexual assault allegation against Cosby. The District Attorney D.A. at the time concluded that he didn’t have enough evidence to prosecute Cosby but didn’t want do hinder the complainant from pursuing a civil law suit against Cosby and at least recover monetary damages.
As a result of this he issued a press release which reads in part as follows (I will emphasize the controversial part):
… [a]fter reviewing the above and consulting with County and Cheltenham detectives, the District Attorney finds insufficient, credible, and admissible evidence exists upon which any charge against Mr. Cosby could be sustained beyond a reasonable doubt … As such, District Attorney Castor declines to authorize the filing of criminal charges in connection with this matter …
Because a civil action with a much lower standard for proof is possible, the District Attorney renders no opinion concerning the credibility of any party involved so as to not contribute to the publicity and taint prospective jurors. The District Attorney does not intend to expound publicly on the details of his decision for fear that his opinions and analysis might be given undue weight by jurors in any contemplated civil action. District Attorney Castor cautions all parties to this matter that he will reconsider this decision should the need arise. Much exists in this investigation that could be used (by others) to portray persons on both sides of the issue in a less than flattering [J-100-2020] – 13 light. The District Attorney encourages the parties to resolve their dispute from this point forward with a minimum of rhetoric.
Bill Cosby was sued and required to give testimony in the civil suit. Ordinarily, if someone is facing criminal jeopardy they cannot be compelled to answer questions in a civil suit ( the 5th Amendment).
In the civil law suit Cosby did not “take the 5th” because legally he was under the impression he could not; relying on the representations of the of the D.A. that he would never be prosecuted for the criminal offence he was accused of committing.
The answers Cosby provided in the civil law suit where then used in the case at bar (where he was ultimately convicted).
The question for the Appeal Court turned on the meaning of: District Attorney Castor cautions all parties to this matter that he will reconsider this decision should the need arise.
The trial court determined that this statement would have signalled to Cosby that he may still be prosecuted for the initial sexual assault case. The case wasn’t completely closed. As a consequence, Cosby should have taken the 5th amendment in the civil case and he failed to do so. That was Cosby’s problem.
The Court of Appeal disagreed and said that when read in isolation this statement may suggest that; but when read in context it was clear that Cosby was entitled to rely on the press release (and that reliance was reasonable) as conveying to him the message that he would never be prosecuted for the offence.
The Court of Appeal concluded that the impugned sentence meant that the DA may make further public announcements about the case should the need arise. “Reconsider the decision” related to the decision to make further public announcements.
The court then went onto discuss appropriate remedies and concluded the only appropriate one that would restore Cosby to his original position would be a discharge of the charges.
Conclusion
I would encourage the reader to read this decision. It is well written and easy to read. It is an affirmation of the value and importance of the rule of law.