Thread by @JuddLegum

1. A lot of misinformation is floating around about the nature of the PA Supreme Court's decision on Cosby.

So I want to clarify a few issues.

Let's talk about EXACTLY WHY the court decided it had to invalidate Cosby's trial.

And why their rationale is very weak

2. First there are a lot of lawyers on Twitter saying the court found there was a type of "contract" between the DA (Castor) and Cosby where the DA promised he would never be prosecuted

The PA Supreme Court court did not find that

The court expressly says there was no contract

3. The court found that there was an UNCONDITIONAL PROMISE from the DA not to prosecute Cosby and that Cosby relied on that promise.

And that, despite the absence of an actual agreement, "fairness" requires that the court to honor this "promise"

4. But the idea that:

a. Castor made such a promise, or

b. Cosby relied on it

Has little to no factual grounding.

5. First, the "evidence" that such a promise was made is based on a 2005 press release that says "District Attorney Castor declines to authorize the filing of criminal charges in connection with this matter"

Note there is no mention of a promise never to prosecute

6. There is not a single piece of written documentation. No paper trail whatsoever that establishes that such a promise was made until 10 YEARS LATER

We are to believe that Cosby's extremely experienced attorneys and Castor just forgot?

7. As the dissenting opinion notes, we first learn about the idea that this promise was made in email Castor sent in 2015 when he's trying to convince his successor not to prosecute Cosby BECAUSE CASTOR WAS RUNNING FOR ELECTED OFFICE AND IT WOULD HAVE BEEN EMBARASSING

8. So back to the "evidence" Cosby "relied" on this promise. Again, nothing in writing.

But the court says the evidence is that he testified in the civil trial without invoking the 5th

Well, in 2004, Cosby voluntarily talked to the police without invoking the 5th

9. A much more straightforward reading of the facts was there was no promise in 2005 but once Castor realized (10 years later) that a new prosecution of Cosby would be a political problem for him he recast the nature of his 2005 decision.

10. The major of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court believes Castor, when his story makes no sense.

The dissent makes quick work of Castor's tale. It's 5 pages long and worth reading.

pacourts.us/assets/opinion…

11. Castor's story is that he believed Constand (despite never having bothered to meet or interview her) and made this promise as part of a grand bargain to help Constand's civil suit (which hadn't even been filed at the time.)

12. Castor's story -- to say it mildly -- lacks credibility, was rejected by the trial court but is effectively revived by the majority of the PA Supreme Court.

13. The idea that Castor heroically helped Constand's case is also BS, as Carrie explains here

https://twitter.com/cagoldberglaw/status/1410328496962945035