Thread by @cagoldberglaw

Just so everybody knows, it's a big pack of lies that in 2005 DA Castor did anything to help Andrea Constand's civil case. Granting Cosby a non-prosecutorial agreement made did not help her civil case. Her civil case would have been served even better by him pleading the 5th

and having the jury draw negative inferences. This was an unnecessary buddy-buddy deal given to America's favorite dad. It was mischaracterized to Andrea. And it's mischaracterized by the Supreme Court of PA.

Prosecutors play NO role in civil claims. Castor is not a party to the civil case. He can't enter an agreement with Cosby in exchange for testimony in unrelated civil court is f*cking CRAZY.

This is so many levels of absurdity, not to mention there's no appeal as to right by Pennsylvania's Supreme Court. These dickheads selected this case because they wanted to overturn it. They intervened to give us this result.

My syntax reflects my agita.

HOLY shit, this wasn't even a non-prosecutorial agreement. The DA just decided not to prosecute. There is no finality with not prosecuting. It's not a real decision. A DA can always pick it up again.

They're applying res judicata here -- the idea that you can't re-prosecute somEbody for the same crime twice. BUT THE GUY WAS NEVER PROSECUTED THE FIRST TIME.

The extent to which this court had to do backflips to overturn the decision and find any agreement not to prosecute cosby is just dismaying.

Everything about Castor is improper. How he did a press release announcing the investigation and then deciding later to drop it. His deference to the "much more experienced" Phillips (Cosby's attorney), him nudging Constand toward a civil suit, him basically doxxing

Constand in the press release dropping the case where he says her job and position. Acting like it's conclusive in 2005 the evidence is inadequate (That's up to a judge or jury to decide. You can't claim to know that). HIm intervening in 2015 to deter DA Ferman from prosecuting.

decision is here, btw. read it and weep.
s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2098…

This Supreme Court of PA reviewed the evidence "de novo" meaning they basically made their own determination about whether there was evidence to justify the trial court's findings. So why the fuck even have trials or juries?

when you can just have a little panel of elected assholes make decisions at whim?

so much for the jury system.

There is an actual PA law that formalizes immunity agreements -- 42 PA.C.S. 5947. It requires an actual court order!!!! Instead, we have a bozo who just didn't prosecute in 2005 and issued a little press release saying he wasn't gonna. there's no agreement. No order.

It doesn't matter that the dipshit 2005 DA Castor thought he was giving Cosby a binding forever agreement not to prosecute. There was no immunity order. The requirement of the immunity order is to offset dipshits like Castor who don't understand the law. And also transparancy.

I'm tweeting as I read this 79 page decision. And I'm overcome by how repetitive it is. Makes me hate these judges and their clerks even more. I'm only at page 50 and based on this so far, I can't understand how they are possibly going to reach the conclusion i know is coming.

Please be aware that it is just so bizarre that Castor was so concerned about the civil case. I have a case against a social media company where I've asked prosecutors for some info about their work with my client to remove the murder victim murder content from social media

and they won't talk to me, deny my FOIL requests, won't share any information. This is for a prosecution where the sentencing happened and the case is not against the sentenced party. They're that fearful of being in any way roped into a civil case.

I hate the word pertinently. Okay, it's page 51 where these judges go sideways.

Everything about Castor is improper. How he did a press release announcing the investigation and then deciding later to drop it. His deference to the "much more experienced" Phillips (Cosby's attorney), him nudging Constand toward a civil suit, him basically doxxing

Constand in the press release dropping the case where he says her job and position. Acting like it's conclusive in 2005 the evidence is inadequate (That's up to a judge or jury to decide. You can't claim to know that). HIm intervening in 2015 to deter DA Ferman from prosecuting.

decision is here, btw. read it and weep.
s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2098…

This Supreme Court of PA reviewed the evidence "de novo" meaning they basically made their own determination about whether there was evidence to justify the trial court's findings. So why the fuck even have trials or juries?

when you can just have a little panel of elected assholes make decisions at whim?

so much for the jury system.

There is an actual PA law that formalizes immunity agreements -- 42 PA.C.S. 5947. It requires an actual court order!!!! Instead, we have a bozo who just didn't prosecute in 2005 and issued a little press release saying he wasn't gonna. there's no agreement. No order.

It doesn't matter that the dipshit 2005 DA Castor thought he was giving Cosby a binding forever agreement not to prosecute. There was no immunity order. The requirement of the immunity order is to offset dipshits like Castor who don't understand the law. And also transparancy.

I'm tweeting as I read this 79 page decision. And I'm overcome by how repetitive it is. Makes me hate these judges and their clerks even more. I'm only at page 50 and based on this so far, I can't understand how they are possibly going to reach the conclusion i know is coming.

Please be aware that it is just so bizarre that Castor was so concerned about the civil case. I have a case against a social media company where I've asked prosecutors for some info about their work with my client to remove the murder victim murder content from social media

and they won't talk to me, deny my FOIL requests, won't share any information. This is for a prosecution where the sentencing happened and the case is not against the sentenced party. They're that fearful of being in any way roped into a civil case.

OMG, this quote: "Prosecutors are more than mere participants in our criminal justice system. ... prosecutors inhabit three distinct and equally critical roles: they are officers of the court, advocates for victims, and
administrators of justice" on page 53

PROSECUTORS ARE NOT ADVOCATES FOR VICTIMS. This is not controversial. their job is not to advocate for victims. it is to avenge society on behalf of the state when somebody breaks the law. It is a common misperception that victims think prosecutors are their attorney.

prosecutors are the government's attorneys. Never forget this. The accused have a right to an attorney. Victims are the only ones in the system that usually do not have an attorney.

So starting at 57 is where the court gets to its f*cked up decision -- that basically if a defendant relies to the defendant's detriment on something a prosecutor says or does, it creates an agreement where there is none.

This, the court says is based upon the prosecutors unique role in the criminal justice system. This is BAD. The purpose of having the right to free defense attorneys in our system is so that defendants rich and poor are conseled

on their legal rights. And any attorney would have been able to tell Cosby there is no immunity agreement based on some loosey goosey language in the press about deciding not now to prosecute.

But also, Cosby did NOT rely to his detriment on any representations made by the 2005 Prosecutor. Pleading the 5th in a civil case, which DA Castor thought he was prohibiting Cosby from doing (btw, Cosby still could've) would have been worse than telling the truth in the civil

case. Plus his attorneys would have told him that without an immunity ORDER you could always be prosecuted later on.

Because until this f*cking off the rails decision, there was NO case law or precedent that would have ever given a defense attorney comfort to think his client couldn't still be prosecuted for statements in a civil case, absent an immunity order.

Hmmmmmm. . page 58 they talk about due process. which is US constitution. A lot of folks have asked if this can be appealed to SCOTUS. [tangent on that: Any case can be petitioned to scotus. it's call getting a writ for cert. However, SCOTUS only takes state court cases

if there's a federal constitutional issue. I'm only on page 58 so let's see where this due process -- a federal cosntitutional issues takes us. it could be a hook to getting scotus to take it. But also, scotus takes about 70 cases a year. That they get to select.

And that's out of 7000 submissions on average per year. So the odds are low probability-wise and subject matter wise that scotus would consider this case]

Note to self: don't be a woman in Pennsylvania.

Now the judges are comparing this to a defendant's detrimental reliance in plea bargaining. Not prosecuting is a passive act. It's an omission. It is so different than a defendant relying on info for a plea bargain which occurs after a person has been charged and relates to

whether or not to plead guilty and implicates their freedom. The court concedes (on page 61) that there's question about whether there was a binding promise (there wasn't). It acknowledges the trial court concluded

there was no overt promise. And this appellate court accepts that. And it even accepts that the original press release does not create a binding agreement. BUT the court says Cosby's RELIANCE on the prosecutor's decision not to prosecute creates a due process problem.

This reliance is in the form of Cosby not answering all the questions in the civil deposition with "I plead the fifth." They're somehow implying that DA Castor intentionally induced Cosby to be, god forbid, open and honest in Bertrand's civil deposition.

Now, (page 64) the court is saying that the prosecutor has violated the constitution which says "[n]o person. .. shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." THESE NUMBNUT JUDGES ARE SAYING THIS IMBECILE 2005 PROSECUTOR deprived cosby of his right

against self-incrimination by declining AT THAT TIME to prosecute. They even call this "compulsory self-incrimination."

They say that by the time he was at the deposition, Cosby no longer faced criminal charges. When compelled to testify, Cosby no longer had a right to invoke his right to remain silent."

But he DID still face criminal charges. There was no immunity order. they could have been brought at any time. Plus, he certainly had the right not to incriminate himself. He could have just not gone to the deposition or answered the way that most defendants do:

"I don't recall." "I don't recollect." "I don't remember." Or you plead the fifth anyway. Or you settle the fricking case. OR IF YOU ARE SO NOT GUILTY OR LIABLE OF ANYTHING, YOU WIN THE CIVIL CASE.

In fact, on page 64, it indicates that Cosby DID decline to answer certain questions in the depositions. So how can these numbnut judges claim he was adversely relying on the immunity? Probably he was not answering for fear he would wind up getting charged b/c the truth was

criminal. The civil court judge compelled him to testify and never seemed to think that he had some fantasy right not to. Cosby then proceeded to testify not just about Andrea, but other women he drugged and assaulted.

He made these incriminating. statements not in reliance upon a fake deal with the prosecutor but because he was compelled by the civil court judge. AND even then he could have decided not to answer. The worst that happens is civil contempt and a negative inference to the jury.

It's not as though liberty is at stake in a civil case. Instead, Cosby voluntarily answered.

It seems that the intervening events of cosby not answering some of the questions and the civil court getting involved SHOWS no reliance on the fake agreement with DA Castor

Contrary to what these numbnut judges claim, no reasonable person in Cosby's position who offers up in deposition that he drugged not just Bertrand but other woman would think that he's not at risk for criminal penalties. Even if stupid enough to think there IS

a deal vis-a-vis Bertrand, he should not think he has one that covers admissions about other women or that covers the entirety of the civil case.

Saying that Cosby relied on his detriment to not being prosecuted is so nuts. and that it then meant he just had to settle for THE VERY REASONABLE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES AMOUNT OF $3M. Instead, he was unjustly enriched by the non-decision to not charge him.

Couching the decision not to prosecute as something he harmfully relied upon his just bananas. He got what, over a decade of temporary freedom to live in our free country as a serial rapist.

What this does, is basically give prosecutors pardoning power. It's GOOD that we have revolving prosecutors and that if some are shit at their job (i.e. don't prosecute wealthy white rapists) that they can get replaced and cases can be opened up again.

This is basically saying that prosecutors inherit all the decisions and intents and non-decisions of their colleagues and predecessors.

So if Vance holds off on prosecute somebody like Epstein or Weinstein or Hadden, a decision like this (if it were in NY, thank god it's not) would make it really untenable for DA Alvin Bragg to change course. @MHoechstetter @AlvinBraggNYC

I believe that the 5th Amendment factors so much into this imbecile decision that SCOTUS would be well within its rights to grant cert in this case.

The court now turns to Cosby's level of sophistication and the idea that nobody with his esteemed counsel could possibly rely on the existence of immunity based on the press release. The court says this is unfair.

And that we should not be looking at it subjectively based on a person's sophistication.
So basically, we shouldn't look at a person's reliance (something that's subjective!) based on their subjective experience of the world. omggggggggggg. I want to shove my head in an oven.

And the court says our cosntitution safeguards fundamental rights for all and to factor in cosby's subjective sophistication would be discrimination. Here, though, we're talking not just about what his subjetive understanding of the world is, but also the objective

messages. And it never said he literally relied on Castor's public announcement. It said that with the advice of his attorney he decided to rely on it. In all likelihood he was advised that there was no guarantee he couldn't be charged later. The court then uses the fact that

he escaped charges for the next ten years to bolster the reasonableness of his reliance. In other words, the term of his unjust enrichment was used to justify his reliance on not being prosecuted.

Let that sink in, one of the main decisions to not prosecute in 2005 was Andrea waiting one year to report the crime. Contrast to Cosby not getting prosecuted for 10x that amount of time as grounds to overturn his prosecution.

page 72 the court goes into contract law. Really fucked up to be applying contract law in a crimianl law setting. The court talks about "specific performance.' This is a concept in contract law where if somebody breaches an agreement, you can compel the breacher

to do the thing the contract required they do. So if you pay for a car and the car doesn't come, you can sue for your money back. Or you can sue for the specific performance of the car being deliverd to you.

OMG holy f*ck. this is the craziest part of this agreement. At first I thought the diatribe about specific performance was a red herring. It's not!!!

Instead, the court is saying that hey, there was this agreement between cosby and the prosecutor. cosby upheld his end of the bargain (by not being prosecuted and not pleading the fifth in those civil depositions). So for equity to be served,

society owes it to Cosby to bar that prosecution.
But holy shit!!!!!!! The criminal justice system is not where we enforce contracts. But also there was no contract. And also if there was, it would be on the breached party (not a court!!) to try to get specific performance.

and that would require Cosby basically to make some sort of lawsuit for specific performance. The court can't just substitute itself in for Cosby here!!!!

The court tries to compare this with a different non-prosecution case (Stipetich) but in that case there was a real deal -- police agreed not to prosecute in exchange for the guy snitching. That is not at all similar.

Instead Cosby on his own volition made statements in a civil deposition -- statements that did not even necessarily determine the fate of this criminal case a decade later. And his decision to answer truthfully (i.e. snitch on himself!!) after first trying to not answer the q's

and then being compelled by the civil court. . . It's just not similar.

The court now says (page 75) that reaching this outcome is the only way to get people to snitch on each other.

I wish I drank. I need a drink. this is just so upsetting. It is so harmful. the decision is so wrong in it claiming that the prosecuotr forced Cosby to particpate against himself in a civil suit. The decision is full of this

diarrhea dicta about how vast the due process violations against cosby were. and that this restores the status quo.

If anybody is reading this, i'm so sorry for where this court has gotten us. and this complete annihilation of wht due process is. and the separation of civil

and criminal. So often proseuctors DO abuse their power against BPOC and poor people accused of crimes. They coerce agreements and pleas and decline to prosecute worhty cases. this is not that kind of case. it's the opposite. The 1st prosecutor had the discretion not to bring the

case in 2005. The second proseucotr had the discretion to bring it. This court says otherwise. i hope SCOTUS hears it.
the end.

* craziest part of the decision

this is the second half of the thread:

https://twitter.com/cagoldberglaw/status/1410354640412151811

my scorn here comes not from being a victims lawyers who hates the result. It's because the decision offends me as an officer of the court.