1. The PA's Supreme Court decision to release Cosby based on a former prosecutor's "agreement" not to prosecute Cosby and instead grant him immunity from prosecution is not legally sound.
Here's why.
Here's why.
2. PA has a very specific process for being granted immunity from prosecution.
AND IT CANNOT BE GRANTED BY A PROSECUTOR.
Rather, a prosecutor has to ask a court to grant immunity
IN COSBY'S CASE THE PROSECUTOR NEVER ASKED
AND IT CANNOT BE GRANTED BY A PROSECUTOR.
Rather, a prosecutor has to ask a court to grant immunity
IN COSBY'S CASE THE PROSECUTOR NEVER ASKED
3. So we are basically going off of the former prosecutor's (and Cosby's) word that such an agreement existed. The record is shaky, but IT DOESN'T MATTER. The prosecutor has no power to immunize Cosby unilaterally
4. The PA Supreme Court, obviously, knows the law about how people can get immunity in Pennsylvania
But they claim that, regardless of the letter of the law, FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS requires them to enforce the "agreement" between Cosby and Castor
But they claim that, regardless of the letter of the law, FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS requires them to enforce the "agreement" between Cosby and Castor
5. This, to put it mildly, is BS. Cosby had the best lawyers money could buy.
Cosby would not be tricked into thinking he had immunity when he did not have immunity. His lawyers were too good for that.
Cosby knew exactly what he was doing and he knew he didn't have immunity.
Cosby would not be tricked into thinking he had immunity when he did not have immunity. His lawyers were too good for that.
Cosby knew exactly what he was doing and he knew he didn't have immunity.
6. The reason the prosecutor didn't apply for immunity is that he knew the fallout he would get for asking immunity for someone that a jury eventually found was guilty.
And Cosby's lawyers likely knew that a court would likely deny him immunity.
And Cosby's lawyers likely knew that a court would likely deny him immunity.
7. So what you have is a wink-wink nudge-nudge deal between the prosecutors and Cosby's high-priced lawyers. It worked out for him until it didn't. And now that courts are saying, even though there was no immunity deal, we need to pretend that there was one to be "fair"
8. There is some confusion about my arguments in this thread. I explain further in a new thread.
The core issue is the alleged promise made by Castor, whether it existed, and whether it was relied upon
The core issue is the alleged promise made by Castor, whether it existed, and whether it was relied upon
https://twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/1410338460658028559
9. I think the issue on how to confer witness immunity under PA law is relevant because there were ways to formalize an immunity deal that weren't pursued.
But the larger issue is there is no evidence at all such a deal existed until Castor started asserting it a decade later
But the larger issue is there is no evidence at all such a deal existed until Castor started asserting it a decade later
10. The more contemporaneous evidence the court points to which includes:
The press release, and
Cosby's decision to answer questions at the civil trial
I don't think are very compelling.
The press release, and
Cosby's decision to answer questions at the civil trial
I don't think are very compelling.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
