All over the news is Bill Cosby, a man who was convicted of sexual assault and released from prison because after he spent three years out of a three-to 10-year sentence in jail, Pennsylvania’s highest court determined that the conviction was wrong. Considered one of the first #MeToo celebrity convictions, many people are outraged.
Many news sources, not surprisingly, are not really explaining what the court’s ruling was. The court’s ruling had absolutely nothing to do with Cosby’s innocence or guilt, but rather was based on the constitutional concept of due process. Let us discuss and then you decide if you believe justice is being served by protecting our rights.
Most crimes tend to have a civil equivalent for when a person is harmed in addition to the government’s suit and can pursue a private suit. The problem with having the two similar suits ongoing at the same time is the fact that criminal defendants have constitutional protections, most importantly the Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination, while civil cases don’t. In most states, laws provide that those civil suits will be held in “abeyance,” temporarily suspended, until the criminal cases are resolved to ensure that these protections are upheld. For example, let’s say you committed a big white collar fraud, the people you defrauded would have a right to sue you, but if you fail to testify to defend yourself - you may lose your case yet you may not want to testify because things you may say could end up incriminating you criminally but your testimony may win your civil case.
So, Cosby had a civil case going on at the same time as the criminal case. The prior DA, Bruce L. Castor Jr., apparently orally agreed that he would not prosecute Crosby in order for Cosby to testify in the civil case. So, the civil case was allowed to continue, and Crosby sat for depositions and testified, including saying that he drugged the plaintiff. A later DA came in and reversed Mr. Castor’s decision and decided to prosecute Crosby and used the testimony during the criminal trial. Crosby’s attorneys complained about this from the start and the trial court denied countless motions and allowed the case to move forward despite the violation of Cosby’s Fifth Amendment rights.
This was the big issue the Pennsylvania Supreme Court found was completely improper and stated that “the only remedy that comports with society’s reasonable expectations of its elected prosecutors and our criminal justice system” is to require the district attorney’s office to honor the decision of the prior DA. As Justice David Norman Wecht stated “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.”
Yes, usually these agreements where DAs agree not to prosecute are in writing, yet the court held it did not matter. People have a right to rely on representations’ especially when they act upon them under their due process of the Constitution. This does not mean that Cosby did not commit a crime, it just means that he cannot be prosecuted for it. While many will think that a guilty man has gone free, we think on a larger level, the higher court did the right thing. When there is a civil case, in most instances, the worst thing that will happen is paying money and maybe some other ramifications but being behind bars is not one of them! Thus, the way people view these cases are completely different as they should be. We believe that constitutional rights such as these should really be protected at almost all costs.
This article is for informational purposes only and is not offered as legal advice as to any particular matter in any particular jurisdiction. No one should rely or otherwise act on the basis of these materials without consulting an attorney as to the particular facts and applicable law involved.