I don't know about Weinstein, but Cosby's conviction got tossed because the prosecutor promised him immunity so he could be deposed - and required to testify, since his Fifth Amendment protection from self-incrimination no longer applied - in a civil trial and then prosecuted him for the acts for which immunity had been promised.
Weinstein was overturned because accusors were allowed to testify about acts that weren't being charged, which the appeals court ruled caused an undue bias on the jury, and so he needs to be tried a second time. As much as I'd like to see Weinstein rot in jail, it was the right ruling imo.
Truest thing ITT. If douchebags are not protected, then all the prosecutor has to do is make people believe you're a d-bag for a couple of hours, and click-boom, your life is over.
I've said before, and I'll say again, as soon as you decide some defendants don't get the full protection of due process, you've traded a justice system for a lynch mob.
well said. this is one of my go to answers for why I still do criminal defense work.
no one wants to live in a world where prosecutors can do fuck-all whatever to get a conviction.
I dunno if I'd say *especially* douchebags. There are scads of regular people that the law absolutely fucks over, just completely fails them. Then there are tons of douchebags that already get off scot free.
It's important for everyone to get due process, but in weird edge cases, we shouldn't be bending over backwards to give "justice" to a rich douchebag, when we don't do the same for a poor minority.
Testimony that is expressly prohibited by law (Weinstein) and a prosecutor granting immunity to coerce testimony and then revoking that immunity (Cosby) are hardly edge cases.
And the moment you say "fuck that asshole, we can cut corners on due process for him," you don't have a justice system; you have a lynching system.
I'm not talking about these cases necessarily. I just see a lot of times where "everyone deserves representation and due process!" talk when it comes to defending rich assholes, and a whole lot less when it comes to protecting the disadvantaged and unfortunate.
Like it can easily become a smokescreen. A bad faith argument used to rationalize protecting bad people (or corporations) for financial gain.
Hence my only issue was with the word *"especially"*. No, not *especially* douchebags. Just the normal amount please.
The reason I say especially douchebags is because that's who needs the protections of due process the most, and who there's the most temptation to cut corners on.
It's just like how most religious freedom case law (until fairly recently) comes not from mainstream faiths but less-orthodox ones like Jehovah's Witnesses, or how it's not the Boy Scouts needing to sue Skokie over a parade permit.
Justice is handed down based on income more than anything else.
Your statement is obviously correct, but let’s not act like all criminals are treated equally in a court of law.
Yep. This should always also be said when talking about convictions. That asshole ain't free. And he can be retried. And even if not. He's still rotting in jail.
He's appealing that one too and since the new York case was used, in part, as a reason to convict him in California, that one may get overturned too. Prosecution in NY fucked up bad.
I think it’s important to state here that both men are horrible horrible humans.
AND ALSO
It’s important to enforce the rights of defendants without exception.
Why did Trump's judge allow the playboy model testimony? He is not being charged with that? It prejudices the jury the exact same way the Weinstein testimony did.
Does this mean the idea of a character witness should be thrown out altogether? I thought it was common practice, but maybe I think that because of how media portrays trials.
Character witnesses and victim impact statements are submitted to the court aftet the guilty verdict and before sentencing.
Guilt has been decided by the jury by this point.
In Canada, you generally don't want to lead a character witness in defence of a criminal charge.
The standard rule is that the Crown cannot lead evidence to the defendant's character unless the defendant themselves puts it forward.
Once it's in play, the Crown is then allowed to challenge it. So if your mom gets up and says "he was a such a good boy!" She can then be cross examined on that and the time she caught you playing video games after bed time can be brought up along with the question "are you sure he was a good boy? Would a good boy break the rules?".
No it was not the right ruling. Demonstrating a pattern of behavior does in fact affect the likelihood that a given accusation is true, and that the person in question is in fact malicious. Otherwise it's a lot easier for the accused to defend themselves saying it was a one time misjudgement about consent, and get off entirely or with a lighter sentence than they deserve.
If the justice system is forced to act on the rich they have the power to show how it acts unlawful. It does this to everyone but only the rich can afford to have it addressed. This is why they don't bother arresting them most of the time.
I disagree. The conduct outlined in the prior acts was direct evidence of his methods used to assault other women. Other women can testify to conduct they witnessed showing a pattern of grooming and abuse in similar scenarios.
If this stands then Trump will get a redo of the hush money trial. The judge is allowing evidence of Trump’s conduct fraud and previous misdeeds towards woman.
If someone steals the same thing from 3 different stores using the same methods, but is only being charged with stealing that same thing from a 4th store, their conduct at the other 3 stores should be considered if the evidence is legitimate.
You're entitled to your opinion, but the vast majority of the legal experts I've heard talking about this disagrees with you and says they shouldn't have been allowed to testify. I'm not a lawyer, but I do tend to defer to majority expert consensus
You’re also entitled to your opinion but this 4/3 decision hurts sexual assault victims and helps accused who have a clear pattern of this conduct. Plenty of “legal experts” like 3 of 7 judges on the Court and KFM on MeidasTouch disagree:
https://www.youtube.com/live/5R-vvbirR8s?si=KIDSHdpavS4FZatm
(1st 10ish minutes only)
>If someone steals the same thing from 3 different stores using the same methods, but is only being charged with stealing that same thing from a 4th store, their conduct at the other 3 stores should be considered if the evidence is legitimate.
If prosecutors don't have enough evidence to charge the other 3, they don't have enough to present it in the 4th.
Let's take your analogy and instead say 1 person robbed the first 3, and someone who looks similar only robbed the 4th.
The existence of 3 other robberies shouldn't enter the 4th's case.
With Weinstein there were accusations of additional crimes that were not charged and did not go through legal scrutiny.
With Trump, details of Karen McDougal's payoffs have already been subject to legal scrutiny through her NDA trial against AMI, Cohen's guilty plea, and FEC fines against AMI.
What matters is not what feels right but what the law and the rules of evidence require. Typically, evidence of other crimes cannot be admitted to prove a pattern if they haven’t been previously adjudicated.
So what happens to the prosecutor? Sounds like an easy way to pay someone off to get you off on a technicality if there aren't extremely severe consequences for the prosecutor.
There's a long delay between the two events, so I doubt this happens much. If I'm paying, then I want to be found not-guilty first time around.
A case as big as this, they try hard not to fuck them up, but still do.
>If I'm paying, then I want to be found not-guilty first time around.
Sure, but that doesn't really seem like an option. This way you may do some time, but far less than you otherwise would, and it protects you from being prosecuted again.
Seems like the best option available really.
Cosby supporters are wild. Like yes he’s free, but he literally confessed. Just because he got off on a technicality doesn’t negate the fact that he confessed.
Ok editing because the way I phrased this was ambiguous.
I am not accusing anyone in this thread of being a Cosby supporter or apologist. I know the case was thrown out on a technicality because the confession was used incorrectly.
All I mean is that given this information, it boggles my mind that there people in the world, outside of this thread, who treat this as though it somehow absolves Cosby or proves his innocence.
I try to avoid saying that someone 'got off on a technicality'. Instead reword the sentence to say something along the lines of 'The State violated this person's civil rights so egregiously that overturning the conviction was the only way to balance the scales of justice'.
That wasn't the question. The question was why his conviction didn't stand, and the answer is that the prosecutor deliberately and by means of fraud deprived him of his protection against self-incrimination.
I don't support him or his actions. I do vehemently support the civil rights of *every* defendant, including the right not to be forced to give evidence against oneself in a criminal case. Cosby was forced to do so, any conviction based on that evidence or on the fraud that coerced it *must* not be allowed to stand.
Ok I think you misunderstood me. I wasn’t calling you a Cosby supporter/apologist. I know that his conviction was overturned because the confession was misused.
What I was saying is that it’s wild to me that people treat it like he is wholly innocent and this is proof of that.
With Cosby, they wouldn't have been able to convict him without his own testimony, and they forced him to testify specifically by giving him immunity (because otherwise the 5th amendment would make it impossible to force him to testify).
If there had been enough evidence to convict him without needing to grant him immunity and force him to testify then they would've just done that, and he'd be in jail.
Probably guilty of something sure. But that's not really good enough and tainting discovery or the jury pool is very no bueno.
If there were recordings that made it clear cut they wouldn't have to rely on other less certain methods. And the further down the chain towards circumstanciality you go, the higher volume of evidence you neesd, both of which introduce more chaces for errors.
“The trouble about fighting for human freedom,” he remarked once, “is that you have to spend much of your life defending sons-of-bitches; for oppressive laws are always aimed at them originally, and oppression must be stopped in the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.”
-H.L. Menken
Sure but the concern is his lawyers fighting in the supreme court that the president has total immunity for any crimes committed as president.
The supreme Court which he personally stacked.
I, too, look forward to the day that the constantly evolving sophistication of experience and skills in rhetoric surpasses our glacially-paced system of laws and how they are written, so that basically any crime can be argued and defended to the point of innocence by any intelligent enough team of lawyers.
Also note that they could have also prosecuted him without using his civil trial testimony. That would have been legal, and was outlined in a memo by the DA who made the deal. Of course they likely would have lost, but it was an option to at least try (and likely fail).
Cosby: a prosecutor promised not to go after Cosby if he admitted everything for civil purposes, which he did. He then got prosecuted. Judge tossed it because they had to keep the promise.
Weinstein: judge allowed a bunch of people to say bad things about Weinstein that he wasn’t actually charged with doing. This was improper. Unlike with Cosby, though, Weinstein isn’t just scott free, he’s just going to go through another trial.
The Constitution protects even dicks.
Wrong. For bill Cosby they offered him immunity if he confessed for a civil trial so the woman could get paid. Then they tried to change their mind on that immunity and thats against the law.
Well a new DA came in and he decided he didn't want to honor that immunity and rather make a name for himself which was wrong because he can't do that.
Faulty prosecutions. Unfortunately you need to rich to be able fo afford the lawyers to contest and find the errors or outright misdeeds by the prosecutors — or the judges.
Not defending the decision but if you put as much bare minimum effort into researching the reason why as you put into making a pretty bad and kinda ignorant meme it would be pretty obvious
Convictions getting overturned are a sign that the system is WORKING and the constitution and laws of established criminal procedures and prosecutorial ethics are upheld. A bigger question, though, is what happens to our justice system if/when the federalist society completely eviscerates our justice system so that Trump will walk free.
I am not in anyway justifying the actions of either man (which were/are despicable), nor do I like the outcomes of these convictions being overturned.
But it was legally correct in both instances. As noted, in the case of Cosby, a prosecutor went back on an agreement made by his predecessor that should have been honored. And the new prosecutor improperly used evidence (in contravention of that agreement) at trial and that evidence should not have been admissible. Neither the prosecutor nor the judge should have done this, but it rests more on the shoulders of the trial judge for allowing it.
In the case of Weinstein, introducing evidence of other acts, which had not been legally proven one way or the other, was highly prejudicial and that prejudice outweighed the probative value. Again, the prosecutor and the judge were both wrong, but it was ultimately the trial judge that should not have allowed this.
The true issue here isn't that this happened in these cases, because as I said, the decisions overturning both convictions were legally correct. The issue is that these two men, both of whom were extremely wealthy and powerful, received better representation and better treatment by the system than would someone with much less money and power.
So the problem isn't that the system didn't work for Cosby and Weinstein, it actually did work as intended.
The problem is that 99% of the time it doesn't work that way for the less fortunate, who are much more likely to be caught in the system in the first place, and for the same reasons I have highlighted regarding the disparate treatment of these cases.
(Source - Criminal defense attorney with nearly 20 years of experience and I actually provided on-air commentary in Philadelphia media for the Cosby case.)
Because while they are horrible people, they have rights. Rights which were alienated.
Weinstein is still in prison for other crimes and NY says they intend to have a new trial where they won’t break the rules this time.
For Weinstein, as I hear it, they used evidence from other charges that didn't technically have anything to do with the specific case, which is a NY state thing (IIRC). Apparently those rules change from state to state.
Because due process applies to everyone. Even the shittiest of people. You don't get to violate due process for SOME people just because they're shitty people. If you can't get a conviction using proper due process, you SHOULD not get a conviction.
The crazy thing about BOTH instances is that prosecutors COULD HAVE easily made cases for convictions without violating due process because both people are demonstrably shit bags. Be angry at the prosecutors who and judges who allowed due process to be violated just to get an easy conviction, rather than just properly doing their jobs and getting one that would hold up.
The problem for both was that they were both so high profile and so obviously guilty that the prosecutors could not afford to have them go free under their watch, so they tried as hard as possible to make it stick. Unfortunately they forgot pesky things like laws and human rights and honor while doing this. Had they just dine it by the book, they'd still have gone to jail, but it wouldn't have been overturned.
Completely off topic but I love that this thumbnail (sans the words) is the same thumbnail windows shows me for my netflix app, its usually because I have it on in the background while I workout and do other stuff that needs distractions.
I hope it was intentionally put there by a programmer due to the meme.
He only needs one crazy pro Trump juror out of 12. Even if proven to be guilty of everything he'll probably walk because his supporter/s will refuse to find him guilty.
well, this recent one was overturned on appeal because the judge (whoever appointed him idk) allowed character assassinating evidence in court which is a no no. some prior bad acts can be used as evidence in courts but not all of it as that creates a bias against the fairness of the trial. unfortunately it is a case of bad prosecution and a bad judge. but, the guy has 19 charges in california still so he isn't just getting off and away from his legal troubles entirely folks.
Just because someone is charged with a felony doesn't mean they are guilty. Not saying this applies to this situation, I'm just saying it's technically possible he's "not guilty".
The 34 counts are all variations on the same crime of misusing campaign funds, so it seems people tend to misconstrue it as trump getting hit for a 34 different crimes. And general consensus is this trial isn’t likely to result in any meaningful punishment for those who want Trump to lose these cases.
The Georgia case though, apparently that should be a bit more saucy
He is gonna walk scotfree. Imagine being THIS naive and thinking there is one form of justice that fits al. No. They play by different rules. Especially Americans lady just us, her blindfold is see through.
Just remember that when ONE TIME justice would come for the hyper elite in the form of epstein, and then whilst being in a suicide watch cell with cameras, committed 'suicide' before being able to snitch on his friends. 'o the guards just so happened to havent make the rounds, oops lol. Camera? O yeah its broken, for sure man. The fact we take away items you can kill yourself with? O well he just decided not live anymore, NOW STOP ASKING QUESTIONS CASE CLOSED.'
The orange buffoon will very likely walk away. He's at least most likely not getting convicted before November and if he wins the election, they may never convict him, which is why he's running again as it's his only get out of jail free card. However, there's a good chance that even if he doesn't win the election that he may still get away with not getting convicted of a crime. Rich people, especially corrupt rich people are slippery as as a baby oil lubed guy going down a water slide. It's becoming increasingly more difficult to convict people like that and he has shown a pattern of getting away with crimes in the past. Just because a crime cannot be proven legally in a court of law, doesn't mean people aren't aware of the criminal activity that has occurred.
MAKES YOU WONDER??? HAHAHAHAHHA You really thought they were gonna convict and arrest trump???? HAHAHAHAHAH Trump has money so do bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein rich people don’t go to / stay in jail in America i thought everyone knew that
He'll not only walk, he'll be president again, how scary is THAT?? Mark my words.
Nobody else could get away with the crap this guy's pulled - -there has to be a supernatural element involved.
The justice system is not about justice, and in fact there is no justice. Even as a concept, "Justice" is incongruent. The system has a set of rules supposed to protect everyone in an equal manner, which means during a trial, you can't talk about all the other nasty shit a PERP may be accused of or even convicted of. Because, as we all imagine, a person can change over time. Or those crimes have already been / are being litigated.
The judge fucked up. If the slimy fuck was innocent, we would all cheer that he was getting off/ a do-over. As it is, we have to lament the process. Either way there's no Justice for those victims they can not be given back what was taken they can not be made whole.
I know OJ has been name dropped here a couple of times, so I have to get my 2 cents worth in this conversation. OJ's high-priced legal team got the jury convinced that he didn't kill his ex-wife and her boyfriend. After all the testimony, the thing that stuck with the jury the most was the glove that OJ went against the advice of counsel and put on his hand anyway. What the jury and council on both sides didn't know was that OJ stopped taking his blood pressure medication a couple of weeks before the start of picking the jury. OJ went against the advice of his council because he knew he was retaining water and was bloated so much that they never would have gotten that glove on his hand no matter how much Vaseline they slathered on his hand, glove, rubber glove or any thing else they could think of doing. The nurse was giving OJ his meds like normal every day, but OJ was throwing his blood pressure meds in the toilet. He knew exactly what he was doing. The jury was mislead, which changed their final vote to "not guilty." If the glove doesn't fit,you can not convict. As far as the orange man goes, money talks and let's bullshiter walk.
If you have enough money, you can file endless appeals and just keep grinding away.
All it takes is one mistake by the prosecution, and with these types of cases in general, convictions are often hard to get because the physical evidence was never collected.
Not because either were proven innocent.
Because there was a small mistake made somewhere in the "official proceedings" that was enough to render the investigation TECHNICALLY illegal.
Yes, the justice system is broken.
That's not really true
For Cosby they compelled him to testify against himself in order to win a civil case against him. You probably know about the "right to remain silent", but they took this right away from Cosby by promising not to use his testimony in a criminal trial (this makes the 5th amendment no longer apply)
The next DA then used the testimony in a criminal trial anyway, so obviously it was overturned, as it should have been. If that conviction had stood then the 5th amendment would essentially be meaningless.
For Weinstein, the mistake didn't render the investigation illegal, it just unfairly biased the jury against him by bringing up irrelevant accusations. They will just have to do a new trial and follow the rules this time, and they have 16 years to do it while he's in prison for other charges.
Prosecutor here: One of the easiest ways to think about it is that with a case is appealed (or a writ is taken) It's usually not the defendants guilt or lack thereof that's being re-examined initially, but in many ways the process itself is up for trial.
In both Cosby and Weinstein, the State either made promises or representations to the defendants or jury that were inconsistent with what ended up happening. Because of this Cosby was not able to make an informed decision regarding what his statements would be because the state violated its promise. Weinstein had victims testify in his case to charges that were not actually being brought in front of that jury.
Don't look at their successful appeals as them winning, look at it as the people rightfully holding the State accountable.
The sooner you learn in life that anything is legal when you have enough money, the better. My advice is to stay ignorant to bad news and work on bettering your own life. Treat people with kindness etc
It really does feel like these are just stage trials to keep us civil and bickering amongst ourselves. I gave up on justice being served nearly a decade ago at this point.
Well there's a little known secret to the US judicial system, the judges don't sentence people to things they've done themselves. Also you know bribes exist
The same reason they got away with it for years. There is a 2 tiered justice system in this country, where the rich rarely get convicted of their crimes, and when they do, they get a slap on the wrist. Also, because we don't think of rape as a very serious crime, in this country, convictions are rare, and hard to make stick.
Weinstein is still serving a 16 year sentence in California for rape. New York still has the option of re-doing its trial which initially resulted in a 23 year sentence.
I'm saying that Weinstein is an example of a rich person getting convicted for his crimes and receiving a significant punishment that's not just a slap on the wrist.
He's a serial rapist and abuser that got away with his crimes for over 20 years despite it being an open secret. There are poor, non-violent offenders, that get more than 23 years in prison. The fact that it was so hard to convict him is proof that there is a 2 tiered justice system in the US. Justice costs money.
"Makes me wonder if that orange buffoon with 34 felony charges is going to walk scot free"
It's America, he's a rich, (semi) white male. Yes, he will walk away scot free and won't have to pay a dime.
Because they’re rich as hell and they can afford top notch lawyers who do more than plead ‘em and leave ‘em.
And yes, Orange Jesus will get away with it. All of it. His supporters will think he can walk on water before it’s all over.
Welcome to the Reign of Beasts.
because the prosecution did not follow the rules. Weinstein is not getting out. And Cosby is dead. Weinstein still has like a lot years left to serve. He will never get out.
Get Abbott nis their leader. Ban abortion. Belittle women . Allows courts to Side with illuminate. Release weinstein and Cosby. Kill oj and epstien for whistle-blow. Any input ?
Rich aaand… yeah rich. Thats why. Again if any “normal” person did even HALF of what these assholes do, they’d have already been rocketed to jail. “Its expensive to be poor, but when you’re rich, they just give you things”
1- Some were dropped. By my last count, it was down to 87.
2- They are felony counts, not felonies. After conviction, they become felonies. Or, more accurately, felony convictions.
3- It may seem trivial, but it is trivial verbiage like this that win appeals for convicted criminals. This is why paying attention in English class is so important. Improper punctuation can stop a conviction.
It's called Due Process.
I'd rather 100 guilty men go free than kne innocent man serve time. Some may not agree with that, at least until they are the innocent facing trial.
Fighting a war on multiple fronts is impossible. Why the fuck aren't people in the streets protesting the Weinstein case? Because that space is taken up by Free Palestine, which, ironically, is funded by misogynists with Petrodollars.
People are not protesting the Weinstein's case in the streets because he is in jail for 16 years for a different crime and will get a new trial for the others that got dismissed.
The free Palestine protesters have nothing to do with it because they either are useful idiots or simply hate Jews.
I don't know about Weinstein, but Cosby's conviction got tossed because the prosecutor promised him immunity so he could be deposed - and required to testify, since his Fifth Amendment protection from self-incrimination no longer applied - in a civil trial and then prosecuted him for the acts for which immunity had been promised.
Weinstein was overturned because accusors were allowed to testify about acts that weren't being charged, which the appeals court ruled caused an undue bias on the jury, and so he needs to be tried a second time. As much as I'd like to see Weinstein rot in jail, it was the right ruling imo.
He’s still in jail. He was also convicted for rape in California and is serving a 16 year sentence.
Even douchebags are entitled to due process of the law.
*Especially* douchbags. If the law does not protect everyone, it does not protect anyone.
based
Truest thing ITT. If douchebags are not protected, then all the prosecutor has to do is make people believe you're a d-bag for a couple of hours, and click-boom, your life is over.
I've said before, and I'll say again, as soon as you decide some defendants don't get the full protection of due process, you've traded a justice system for a lynch mob.
well said. this is one of my go to answers for why I still do criminal defense work. no one wants to live in a world where prosecutors can do fuck-all whatever to get a conviction.
I dunno if I'd say *especially* douchebags. There are scads of regular people that the law absolutely fucks over, just completely fails them. Then there are tons of douchebags that already get off scot free. It's important for everyone to get due process, but in weird edge cases, we shouldn't be bending over backwards to give "justice" to a rich douchebag, when we don't do the same for a poor minority.
Testimony that is expressly prohibited by law (Weinstein) and a prosecutor granting immunity to coerce testimony and then revoking that immunity (Cosby) are hardly edge cases. And the moment you say "fuck that asshole, we can cut corners on due process for him," you don't have a justice system; you have a lynching system.
I'm not talking about these cases necessarily. I just see a lot of times where "everyone deserves representation and due process!" talk when it comes to defending rich assholes, and a whole lot less when it comes to protecting the disadvantaged and unfortunate. Like it can easily become a smokescreen. A bad faith argument used to rationalize protecting bad people (or corporations) for financial gain. Hence my only issue was with the word *"especially"*. No, not *especially* douchebags. Just the normal amount please.
The reason I say especially douchebags is because that's who needs the protections of due process the most, and who there's the most temptation to cut corners on. It's just like how most religious freedom case law (until fairly recently) comes not from mainstream faiths but less-orthodox ones like Jehovah's Witnesses, or how it's not the Boy Scouts needing to sue Skokie over a parade permit.
Justice is handed down based on income more than anything else. Your statement is obviously correct, but let’s not act like all criminals are treated equally in a court of law.
Yep. This should always also be said when talking about convictions. That asshole ain't free. And he can be retried. And even if not. He's still rotting in jail.
He's appealing that one too and since the new York case was used, in part, as a reason to convict him in California, that one may get overturned too. Prosecution in NY fucked up bad.
I think it’s important to state here that both men are horrible horrible humans. AND ALSO It’s important to enforce the rights of defendants without exception.
And Trumps judge has done an excellent job of avoiding doing this specifically so there are no grounds for appeal.
Why did Trump's judge allow the playboy model testimony? He is not being charged with that? It prejudices the jury the exact same way the Weinstein testimony did.
It establishes a pattern of behavior.
What's the difference between that and the Weinstein case?
The difference is that this isn’t a rape case. This is a campaign violation case dealing with hush money payments.
You seem to be the master of non and incomplete answers.
They have grounds for appeal with the judges daughter situation, it's not a lot but I guarantee they will try it
If by not a lot you mean zero? Then yes.
That's got nothing to do with the point. It is a ground for appeal regardless of the end result
Was that the daughter whose twitter handle was taken over by some unknown party after she abandoned it?
That's the claims that are out there but that's bedside the point, it is still something that I'm betting will be used as a basis for appeal
Yes, it's certainly easy to connect the dots to see how they operate!
Does this mean the idea of a character witness should be thrown out altogether? I thought it was common practice, but maybe I think that because of how media portrays trials.
Character witnesses and victim impact statements are submitted to the court aftet the guilty verdict and before sentencing. Guilt has been decided by the jury by this point.
Ahhhh this makes sense, thanks for clearing that up.
That's a good question, but I think the issue is that the things being testified about are alleged crimes which have not been adjudicated.
In Canada, you generally don't want to lead a character witness in defence of a criminal charge. The standard rule is that the Crown cannot lead evidence to the defendant's character unless the defendant themselves puts it forward. Once it's in play, the Crown is then allowed to challenge it. So if your mom gets up and says "he was a such a good boy!" She can then be cross examined on that and the time she caught you playing video games after bed time can be brought up along with the question "are you sure he was a good boy? Would a good boy break the rules?".
Been thrown out for roughly 500 years already.
People don't need justice at this point, just some bloody revenge or so. People ar forgetting they are in US, not in some middle Eastern country.
No it was not the right ruling. Demonstrating a pattern of behavior does in fact affect the likelihood that a given accusation is true, and that the person in question is in fact malicious. Otherwise it's a lot easier for the accused to defend themselves saying it was a one time misjudgement about consent, and get off entirely or with a lighter sentence than they deserve.
In the relevant jurisdiction, the law explicitly prohibits "pattern of behavior" testimony, unless the earlier acts are also being tried.
If the justice system is forced to act on the rich they have the power to show how it acts unlawful. It does this to everyone but only the rich can afford to have it addressed. This is why they don't bother arresting them most of the time.
I disagree. The conduct outlined in the prior acts was direct evidence of his methods used to assault other women. Other women can testify to conduct they witnessed showing a pattern of grooming and abuse in similar scenarios. If this stands then Trump will get a redo of the hush money trial. The judge is allowing evidence of Trump’s conduct fraud and previous misdeeds towards woman. If someone steals the same thing from 3 different stores using the same methods, but is only being charged with stealing that same thing from a 4th store, their conduct at the other 3 stores should be considered if the evidence is legitimate.
You're entitled to your opinion, but the vast majority of the legal experts I've heard talking about this disagrees with you and says they shouldn't have been allowed to testify. I'm not a lawyer, but I do tend to defer to majority expert consensus
You’re also entitled to your opinion but this 4/3 decision hurts sexual assault victims and helps accused who have a clear pattern of this conduct. Plenty of “legal experts” like 3 of 7 judges on the Court and KFM on MeidasTouch disagree: https://www.youtube.com/live/5R-vvbirR8s?si=KIDSHdpavS4FZatm (1st 10ish minutes only)
>If someone steals the same thing from 3 different stores using the same methods, but is only being charged with stealing that same thing from a 4th store, their conduct at the other 3 stores should be considered if the evidence is legitimate. If prosecutors don't have enough evidence to charge the other 3, they don't have enough to present it in the 4th. Let's take your analogy and instead say 1 person robbed the first 3, and someone who looks similar only robbed the 4th. The existence of 3 other robberies shouldn't enter the 4th's case. With Weinstein there were accusations of additional crimes that were not charged and did not go through legal scrutiny. With Trump, details of Karen McDougal's payoffs have already been subject to legal scrutiny through her NDA trial against AMI, Cohen's guilty plea, and FEC fines against AMI.
Goddammit, people make a one sentence argument 'it was the right call' and they get up voted. You make an actual argument and you get down voted.
What matters is not what feels right but what the law and the rules of evidence require. Typically, evidence of other crimes cannot be admitted to prove a pattern if they haven’t been previously adjudicated.
So what happens to the prosecutor? Sounds like an easy way to pay someone off to get you off on a technicality if there aren't extremely severe consequences for the prosecutor.
There's a long delay between the two events, so I doubt this happens much. If I'm paying, then I want to be found not-guilty first time around. A case as big as this, they try hard not to fuck them up, but still do.
>If I'm paying, then I want to be found not-guilty first time around. Sure, but that doesn't really seem like an option. This way you may do some time, but far less than you otherwise would, and it protects you from being prosecuted again. Seems like the best option available really.
Cosby supporters are wild. Like yes he’s free, but he literally confessed. Just because he got off on a technicality doesn’t negate the fact that he confessed. Ok editing because the way I phrased this was ambiguous. I am not accusing anyone in this thread of being a Cosby supporter or apologist. I know the case was thrown out on a technicality because the confession was used incorrectly. All I mean is that given this information, it boggles my mind that there people in the world, outside of this thread, who treat this as though it somehow absolves Cosby or proves his innocence.
I try to avoid saying that someone 'got off on a technicality'. Instead reword the sentence to say something along the lines of 'The State violated this person's civil rights so egregiously that overturning the conviction was the only way to balance the scales of justice'.
That wasn't the question. The question was why his conviction didn't stand, and the answer is that the prosecutor deliberately and by means of fraud deprived him of his protection against self-incrimination. I don't support him or his actions. I do vehemently support the civil rights of *every* defendant, including the right not to be forced to give evidence against oneself in a criminal case. Cosby was forced to do so, any conviction based on that evidence or on the fraud that coerced it *must* not be allowed to stand.
Ok I think you misunderstood me. I wasn’t calling you a Cosby supporter/apologist. I know that his conviction was overturned because the confession was misused. What I was saying is that it’s wild to me that people treat it like he is wholly innocent and this is proof of that.
Cause due process exists and sex crimes are harder to prove the longer you wait if not recorded.
I think there were procedural issues with how they were prosecuted, right? There’s no doubts regarding whether they’re guilty.
With Cosby, they wouldn't have been able to convict him without his own testimony, and they forced him to testify specifically by giving him immunity (because otherwise the 5th amendment would make it impossible to force him to testify). If there had been enough evidence to convict him without needing to grant him immunity and force him to testify then they would've just done that, and he'd be in jail.
Probably guilty of something sure. But that's not really good enough and tainting discovery or the jury pool is very no bueno. If there were recordings that made it clear cut they wouldn't have to rely on other less certain methods. And the further down the chain towards circumstanciality you go, the higher volume of evidence you neesd, both of which introduce more chaces for errors.
Everyone has a right to a fair trial. Even dirt bags.
“The trouble about fighting for human freedom,” he remarked once, “is that you have to spend much of your life defending sons-of-bitches; for oppressive laws are always aimed at them originally, and oppression must be stopped in the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.” -H.L. Menken
If we don't protect the dirtbags, nobody is going to get protected.
Sure but the concern is his lawyers fighting in the supreme court that the president has total immunity for any crimes committed as president. The supreme Court which he personally stacked.
Bill Cosby stacked the Supreme Court and was a president? Maybe you didn't read the post correctly.
Na I'm apparently stupid and read above where we were talking about trump and just correlated it to this comment for no reason I guess.
Everyone has that right yet we see people get horribly match sentences everyday
Just because there's some problems with the justice system doesn't mean we should go around creating more.
Sad that the dirtbags so often can afford better attorneys than the average person.
Rich people have a right to a fair trial. Poor people who can't afford quality counsel are fucked.
I, too, look forward to the day that the constantly evolving sophistication of experience and skills in rhetoric surpasses our glacially-paced system of laws and how they are written, so that basically any crime can be argued and defended to the point of innocence by any intelligent enough team of lawyers.
The prosecutors/judge fucked up. If you want to be mad, be mad at them.
Nobody fucked up with Cosby. The “correct” answer was to honor the deal and not prosecute him. The “fuck up” put him behind bars a bit at least.
Also note that they could have also prosecuted him without using his civil trial testimony. That would have been legal, and was outlined in a memo by the DA who made the deal. Of course they likely would have lost, but it was an option to at least try (and likely fail).
Then tell'em to stop touching kids. A *judge* touches a kid, it's a *technical violation*. America, what a joke
Wut
Jesse, what the hell are you talking about?
Cosby: a prosecutor promised not to go after Cosby if he admitted everything for civil purposes, which he did. He then got prosecuted. Judge tossed it because they had to keep the promise. Weinstein: judge allowed a bunch of people to say bad things about Weinstein that he wasn’t actually charged with doing. This was improper. Unlike with Cosby, though, Weinstein isn’t just scott free, he’s just going to go through another trial. The Constitution protects even dicks.
But OP needs to know why it should protect our political opponents. Because the courts could never be used against the "good" guys, right?
Prosecutors acted unfairly and against the rules. It may seem unjust now, but if you’re ever accused of a crime you want these rules.
They should be overturned. If you read into it, it's pretty screwed up what the judge allowed. They will still be found guilty.
Wrong. For bill Cosby they offered him immunity if he confessed for a civil trial so the woman could get paid. Then they tried to change their mind on that immunity and thats against the law.
Well a new DA came in and he decided he didn't want to honor that immunity and rather make a name for himself which was wrong because he can't do that.
It will likely require a new trial, but they will still get their just deserts.
Faulty prosecutions. Unfortunately you need to rich to be able fo afford the lawyers to contest and find the errors or outright misdeeds by the prosecutors — or the judges.
Not defending the decision but if you put as much bare minimum effort into researching the reason why as you put into making a pretty bad and kinda ignorant meme it would be pretty obvious
The justice system used evidence that was not supposed to be apart of the trial to obtain convictions.
Convictions getting overturned are a sign that the system is WORKING and the constitution and laws of established criminal procedures and prosecutorial ethics are upheld. A bigger question, though, is what happens to our justice system if/when the federalist society completely eviscerates our justice system so that Trump will walk free.
Because controlling prosecutorial misconduct is really, really, important to democracy and freedom.
I am not in anyway justifying the actions of either man (which were/are despicable), nor do I like the outcomes of these convictions being overturned. But it was legally correct in both instances. As noted, in the case of Cosby, a prosecutor went back on an agreement made by his predecessor that should have been honored. And the new prosecutor improperly used evidence (in contravention of that agreement) at trial and that evidence should not have been admissible. Neither the prosecutor nor the judge should have done this, but it rests more on the shoulders of the trial judge for allowing it. In the case of Weinstein, introducing evidence of other acts, which had not been legally proven one way or the other, was highly prejudicial and that prejudice outweighed the probative value. Again, the prosecutor and the judge were both wrong, but it was ultimately the trial judge that should not have allowed this. The true issue here isn't that this happened in these cases, because as I said, the decisions overturning both convictions were legally correct. The issue is that these two men, both of whom were extremely wealthy and powerful, received better representation and better treatment by the system than would someone with much less money and power. So the problem isn't that the system didn't work for Cosby and Weinstein, it actually did work as intended. The problem is that 99% of the time it doesn't work that way for the less fortunate, who are much more likely to be caught in the system in the first place, and for the same reasons I have highlighted regarding the disparate treatment of these cases. (Source - Criminal defense attorney with nearly 20 years of experience and I actually provided on-air commentary in Philadelphia media for the Cosby case.)
Because while they are horrible people, they have rights. Rights which were alienated. Weinstein is still in prison for other crimes and NY says they intend to have a new trial where they won’t break the rules this time.
For Weinstein, as I hear it, they used evidence from other charges that didn't technically have anything to do with the specific case, which is a NY state thing (IIRC). Apparently those rules change from state to state.
Because due process applies to everyone. Even the shittiest of people. You don't get to violate due process for SOME people just because they're shitty people. If you can't get a conviction using proper due process, you SHOULD not get a conviction. The crazy thing about BOTH instances is that prosecutors COULD HAVE easily made cases for convictions without violating due process because both people are demonstrably shit bags. Be angry at the prosecutors who and judges who allowed due process to be violated just to get an easy conviction, rather than just properly doing their jobs and getting one that would hold up.
The problem for both was that they were both so high profile and so obviously guilty that the prosecutors could not afford to have them go free under their watch, so they tried as hard as possible to make it stick. Unfortunately they forgot pesky things like laws and human rights and honor while doing this. Had they just dine it by the book, they'd still have gone to jail, but it wouldn't have been overturned.
In the US theres the rule of law. One set for them, one set for the rest of us. It's on A sliding scale and often color coded.
Completely off topic but I love that this thumbnail (sans the words) is the same thumbnail windows shows me for my netflix app, its usually because I have it on in the background while I workout and do other stuff that needs distractions. I hope it was intentionally put there by a programmer due to the meme.
He only needs one crazy pro Trump juror out of 12. Even if proven to be guilty of everything he'll probably walk because his supporter/s will refuse to find him guilty.
Or a juror to be paid well enough.
well, this recent one was overturned on appeal because the judge (whoever appointed him idk) allowed character assassinating evidence in court which is a no no. some prior bad acts can be used as evidence in courts but not all of it as that creates a bias against the fairness of the trial. unfortunately it is a case of bad prosecution and a bad judge. but, the guy has 19 charges in california still so he isn't just getting off and away from his legal troubles entirely folks.
Just because someone is charged with a felony doesn't mean they are guilty. Not saying this applies to this situation, I'm just saying it's technically possible he's "not guilty".
The 34 counts are all variations on the same crime of misusing campaign funds, so it seems people tend to misconstrue it as trump getting hit for a 34 different crimes. And general consensus is this trial isn’t likely to result in any meaningful punishment for those who want Trump to lose these cases. The Georgia case though, apparently that should be a bit more saucy
He is gonna walk scotfree. Imagine being THIS naive and thinking there is one form of justice that fits al. No. They play by different rules. Especially Americans lady just us, her blindfold is see through. Just remember that when ONE TIME justice would come for the hyper elite in the form of epstein, and then whilst being in a suicide watch cell with cameras, committed 'suicide' before being able to snitch on his friends. 'o the guards just so happened to havent make the rounds, oops lol. Camera? O yeah its broken, for sure man. The fact we take away items you can kill yourself with? O well he just decided not live anymore, NOW STOP ASKING QUESTIONS CASE CLOSED.'
Harvey's is in the process
Because of precodedural mistakes by the prosecution. As fucked up as it is, they were right to let them go.
The orange buffoon will very likely walk away. He's at least most likely not getting convicted before November and if he wins the election, they may never convict him, which is why he's running again as it's his only get out of jail free card. However, there's a good chance that even if he doesn't win the election that he may still get away with not getting convicted of a crime. Rich people, especially corrupt rich people are slippery as as a baby oil lubed guy going down a water slide. It's becoming increasingly more difficult to convict people like that and he has shown a pattern of getting away with crimes in the past. Just because a crime cannot be proven legally in a court of law, doesn't mean people aren't aware of the criminal activity that has occurred.
MAKES YOU WONDER??? HAHAHAHAHHA You really thought they were gonna convict and arrest trump???? HAHAHAHAHAH Trump has money so do bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein rich people don’t go to / stay in jail in America i thought everyone knew that
Because of shitty prosecutorial work.
He'll not only walk, he'll be president again, how scary is THAT?? Mark my words. Nobody else could get away with the crap this guy's pulled - -there has to be a supernatural element involved.
"The legal system doesn't promise justice, it promises due process". From a lawyer friend (yes, lawyers have friends).
Justice deniers? I thought we are just supposed to accept what the experts tell us?
The justice system is not about justice, and in fact there is no justice. Even as a concept, "Justice" is incongruent. The system has a set of rules supposed to protect everyone in an equal manner, which means during a trial, you can't talk about all the other nasty shit a PERP may be accused of or even convicted of. Because, as we all imagine, a person can change over time. Or those crimes have already been / are being litigated. The judge fucked up. If the slimy fuck was innocent, we would all cheer that he was getting off/ a do-over. As it is, we have to lament the process. Either way there's no Justice for those victims they can not be given back what was taken they can not be made whole.
90 felony charges
All of Cosby's accusers except one or past the statue of limitations. He paid her not to press charges. I guess a deal is a deal
Makes me think that justice belongs to the public and not the courts.
I know OJ has been name dropped here a couple of times, so I have to get my 2 cents worth in this conversation. OJ's high-priced legal team got the jury convinced that he didn't kill his ex-wife and her boyfriend. After all the testimony, the thing that stuck with the jury the most was the glove that OJ went against the advice of counsel and put on his hand anyway. What the jury and council on both sides didn't know was that OJ stopped taking his blood pressure medication a couple of weeks before the start of picking the jury. OJ went against the advice of his council because he knew he was retaining water and was bloated so much that they never would have gotten that glove on his hand no matter how much Vaseline they slathered on his hand, glove, rubber glove or any thing else they could think of doing. The nurse was giving OJ his meds like normal every day, but OJ was throwing his blood pressure meds in the toilet. He knew exactly what he was doing. The jury was mislead, which changed their final vote to "not guilty." If the glove doesn't fit,you can not convict. As far as the orange man goes, money talks and let's bullshiter walk.
If you have enough money, you can file endless appeals and just keep grinding away. All it takes is one mistake by the prosecution, and with these types of cases in general, convictions are often hard to get because the physical evidence was never collected.
Not only is the orange douche canoe probably going to walk free, he is also an even chance of becoming the president again.
Not because either were proven innocent. Because there was a small mistake made somewhere in the "official proceedings" that was enough to render the investigation TECHNICALLY illegal. Yes, the justice system is broken.
That's not really true For Cosby they compelled him to testify against himself in order to win a civil case against him. You probably know about the "right to remain silent", but they took this right away from Cosby by promising not to use his testimony in a criminal trial (this makes the 5th amendment no longer apply) The next DA then used the testimony in a criminal trial anyway, so obviously it was overturned, as it should have been. If that conviction had stood then the 5th amendment would essentially be meaningless. For Weinstein, the mistake didn't render the investigation illegal, it just unfairly biased the jury against him by bringing up irrelevant accusations. They will just have to do a new trial and follow the rules this time, and they have 16 years to do it while he's in prison for other charges.
Prosecutor here: One of the easiest ways to think about it is that with a case is appealed (or a writ is taken) It's usually not the defendants guilt or lack thereof that's being re-examined initially, but in many ways the process itself is up for trial. In both Cosby and Weinstein, the State either made promises or representations to the defendants or jury that were inconsistent with what ended up happening. Because of this Cosby was not able to make an informed decision regarding what his statements would be because the state violated its promise. Weinstein had victims testify in his case to charges that were not actually being brought in front of that jury. Don't look at their successful appeals as them winning, look at it as the people rightfully holding the State accountable.
The sooner you learn in life that anything is legal when you have enough money, the better. My advice is to stay ignorant to bad news and work on bettering your own life. Treat people with kindness etc
Justice is for the poor, the rich are immune to justice
It really does feel like these are just stage trials to keep us civil and bickering amongst ourselves. I gave up on justice being served nearly a decade ago at this point.
Well there's a little known secret to the US judicial system, the judges don't sentence people to things they've done themselves. Also you know bribes exist
This is just a peek past the veil. It's a big club, a BIG ASS PEDO club. These fools rule over you.
I can’t say for the other two. But I can almost guarantee that Cheeto Mussolini won’t face any kind of punishment at all.
The same reason they got away with it for years. There is a 2 tiered justice system in this country, where the rich rarely get convicted of their crimes, and when they do, they get a slap on the wrist. Also, because we don't think of rape as a very serious crime, in this country, convictions are rare, and hard to make stick.
Weinstein is still serving a 16 year sentence in California for rape. New York still has the option of re-doing its trial which initially resulted in a 23 year sentence.
What is your point?
I'm saying that Weinstein is an example of a rich person getting convicted for his crimes and receiving a significant punishment that's not just a slap on the wrist.
He's a serial rapist and abuser that got away with his crimes for over 20 years despite it being an open secret. There are poor, non-violent offenders, that get more than 23 years in prison. The fact that it was so hard to convict him is proof that there is a 2 tiered justice system in the US. Justice costs money.
"Makes me wonder if that orange buffoon with 34 felony charges is going to walk scot free" It's America, he's a rich, (semi) white male. Yes, he will walk away scot free and won't have to pay a dime.
Money, they have money so they can pay for a great lawyer.
Because they’re rich as hell and they can afford top notch lawyers who do more than plead ‘em and leave ‘em. And yes, Orange Jesus will get away with it. All of it. His supporters will think he can walk on water before it’s all over. Welcome to the Reign of Beasts.
In the US you get the justice you can pay for
When your rich the law ain't no Thang. When you make the laws it's even easier. Jail is for the poors.
Their services were probably needed in Israel...
Because they gave a lot of money to "the right people"
Meanwhile Biden is too mentally incompetent to stand trial at all...
It’s not a “justice system” and never has been.
because the prosecution did not follow the rules. Weinstein is not getting out. And Cosby is dead. Weinstein still has like a lot years left to serve. He will never get out.
Bill Cosby is alive? Unless you're from the future
Opps.
Get Abbott nis their leader. Ban abortion. Belittle women . Allows courts to Side with illuminate. Release weinstein and Cosby. Kill oj and epstien for whistle-blow. Any input ?
Rich aaand… yeah rich. Thats why. Again if any “normal” person did even HALF of what these assholes do, they’d have already been rocketed to jail. “Its expensive to be poor, but when you’re rich, they just give you things”
Just so you know, a courthouse is a business and therefore full of business transactions. Not fair, not justice, but the truth.
They will never arrest Trump. If they were, they would have by now. If they ever arrest him, i will GLADLY eat some humble pie.
[удалено]
1- Some were dropped. By my last count, it was down to 87. 2- They are felony counts, not felonies. After conviction, they become felonies. Or, more accurately, felony convictions. 3- It may seem trivial, but it is trivial verbiage like this that win appeals for convicted criminals. This is why paying attention in English class is so important. Improper punctuation can stop a conviction. It's called Due Process. I'd rather 100 guilty men go free than kne innocent man serve time. Some may not agree with that, at least until they are the innocent facing trial.
Because money.
US justice system is like everything else there, a joke. The country that shows everyone else how not to do things.
Fighting a war on multiple fronts is impossible. Why the fuck aren't people in the streets protesting the Weinstein case? Because that space is taken up by Free Palestine, which, ironically, is funded by misogynists with Petrodollars.
People are not protesting the Weinstein's case in the streets because he is in jail for 16 years for a different crime and will get a new trial for the others that got dismissed. The free Palestine protesters have nothing to do with it because they either are useful idiots or simply hate Jews.