“Pennsylvania’s highest court threw out Bill Cosby’s sexual assault conviction and released him from prison… the Pennsylvania Supreme Court said Wednesday that District Attorney Kevin Steele, who made the decision to arrest Cosby, was obligated to stand by his predecessor’s promise not to charge Cosby.” AP News
Many on both sides argue that while unfortunate, the decision is correct:
“When a deposition is taken in a civil case, the right against self-incrimination allows a witness to refuse to answer any questions that might lead to criminal liability. But if there is no possibility of a criminal prosecution, then an individual cannot invoke the 5th Amendment and must answer questions. For example, the 5th Amendment privilege does not apply if a witness is granted immunity from prosecution…
“There need not be a formal immunity agreement or a promise in writing. If a prosecutor causes a person to reasonably believe that there is no chance of a criminal prosecution, any statements that are subsequently obtained must be excluded from being used as evidence. This is essential to protecting the fundamental right of not having to incriminate oneself. It would also be unfair to use statements gained in reliance on a promise not to prosecute. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court found that the evidence was clear that Dist. Atty. Castor assured Cosby that he would not be criminally prosecuted…
“There is a cost to having a Constitution that protects the guilty as well as the innocent. But it is the only way that all of our rights can be secured from abuses by the government.”
Erwin Chemerinsky, Los Angeles Times
“The ruling isn't vindication for Cosby. Rather, it's a victory for our rights. Constitutional violations are neither good nor noble when they’re done in the name of righteousness. They’re still violations, and they’re a threat to all. Everyone, guilty and innocent alike, is entitled to his rights. Everyone is also entitled to benefit of law. It’s what separates prosecution from persecution. But if we violate certain rights for the sake of convicting the guilty, what will be left to protect the innocent? The courts must defend the constitutional rights of all people, even people like Cosby. Not for his sake, but for our own.”
Becket Adams, Washington Examiner
Both sides also criticize the initial decision in 2005 not to prosecute Cosby:
“It's true that given the year elapsed between the alleged assault and Constand coming forward, material evidence would be lacking, making a conviction more difficult. But Castor's other reasoning can be described, at best, as wildly ignorant of how sexual assault victims cope…
“Castor said that Constand's attempts to coax Cosby into an admission of guilt over clandestinely recorded phone calls ‘could be interpreted as attempts by Constand and her mother to get Cosby to pay Constand so that she would not contact the authorities.’ In other words, Castor believed a criminal court would interpret Constand as a gold digger who cried rape…
“The overwhelming majority of sexual assault victims knew their attacker prior to their assault, and the overwhelming majority of those assailants are repeat offenders. As evidenced by the deluge of allegations against convicted rapist Harvey Weinstein, it's not uncommon at all for victims to remain in contact with their attackers, and if anything, Constand's phone stings demonstrated that she wanted to bring as credible a case forward as possible.”
Tiana Lowe, Washington Examiner
“The prosecutor at the time didn't believe the case was winnable because it took Constand almost a year to go to the police after the alleged assault, and there was no physical evidence to back up her claims. He didn't find her credible; there were some inconsistencies in her story, he said, and he counted against her the fact that she had consulted a lawyer…
“The most generous reading of the situation is that this prosecutor correctly ascertained that it's difficult to get a conviction in sexual assault cases, and exponentially more so when the accused is a beloved man with deep pockets and the accuser is someone who didn't immediately behave the way rape victims do on television. Either way, it's an indictment – of the prosecution, of Bill Cosby, of our justice system, and of our country.”
Jill Filipovic, The Week
Other opinions below.
“If the court had found that some of the evidence against him was flawed or the accusation couldn’t be sustained, then we might have been looking at a situation where Cosby was wrongly convicted to begin with. But this just seems like a procedural error…
“If the prosecution of a suspect is flawed to the point where a conviction can’t hold up under appeal, then the person is technically not guilty. (Which is not the same thing as being ‘innocent’ but that’s how it works out in reality.) But this has to be a punch to the gut for the victim and her family. I’m sure we all heard the descriptions of how frustrating it was to try to hold him accountable for such a long time, finally obtaining what they thought was justice in 2018. And now the rug is pulled out from under them again.”
Jazz Shaw, Hot Air
Some argue that “It would be a mistake to look at this outcome as justice denied. Cosby’s legacy is shattered. He is said to have paid millions of dollars to settle other cases. He is an 83-year-old man who did three years in prison on a case that should not have been brought. And he will continue to be hounded as complainants strategize on whether other charges or claims can be brought. He will have no peace, a problem he brought on himself by his atrocious actions.”
Andrew C. McCarthy, National Review
“Even if we grant that Cosby's rights were violated, a poor or working-class person would never get this kind of sweetheart non-prosecution agreement. Second, Cosby's vast wealth allowed him nearly limitless access to well-resourced lawyers who could search for some loophole or another to get him out of jail, which non-rich people also do not get…
“If you're a regular working stiff in this country accused of a crime, it's a safe bet that you will get the absolute bare minimum of due process. And there's a good chance you will get railroaded directly into prison by prosecutors stacking up as many charges as they can, forcing you to take a plea bargain out of fear.”
Ryan Cooper, The Week
“I can’t imagine what [Andrea Constand] must be going through right now. She’s probably kicking herself for believing she ever had a real shot getting justice with our flawed legal system… This ruling is a huge setback for the #MeToo movement. It’s also a setback for sexual abuse survivors everywhere who all too often put their trust and faith in a system that doesn’t always come through for them. They are going to look at this as another glaring example of why so many sex abuse survivors don’t bother coming forward, especially when their allegations involve a wealthy, famous predator.”
Jenice Armstrong, Philadelphia Inquirer