Hacker News Reader

Comment by mikestew | Hacker News Reader

So let me make sure I'm reading this right: prosecutor says, "testify in this civil case, and you will not be criminally prosecuted." Cosby testifies in civil case, prosecutor takes Cosby's testimony from civil case and uses it as the basis for criminal prosecution.

<insert standard disclaimer>, but yeah, let the guy walk; and disbar the scumbag prosecutor while we're at it. Disbar if not for being a scumbag, but for being grossly incompetent if nothing else. IANAL, so maybe that's why I can't see how anyone involved thought this would end well.

View on HN

A bit more specifically, because Cosby was no longer facing criminal charges, he was not eligible to plead the 5th amendment in the under-oath depositions he was required to make on the civil cases, so he didn't and he admitted to giving women quaaludes, etc. If the DA's office had not informed Cosby that they were dropping the criminal charges, Cosby would not have been forced to make those incriminating statements.

Different prosecutors.

"scumbag prosecutor" is not fair. I don't know him or her, and I'm sure you don't either.

Based on my not-a-lawyer experience, it is very likely that at every stage the prosecution team was going for exactly what they though they could prove in court at the time. They can't predict what evidence may come out in the future, and they can't predict how Judges will interpret the facts.

There were many victims. Not prosecuting one doesn't mean they can't for the others.

"scumbag prosecutor" is not fair.

They reneged on the deal, and a conviction with a prison sentence was the result. I thought "scumbag" was the more polite option, frankly, but what word would you prefer? Not that I'll not stick with "scumbag", but I'm always open to new, perhaps more creative options.

uhm, do you remember who they were prosecuting?

The fact that they had to make a deal with Cosby to get him to testify indicates that they didn't have a strong case against him.

Scumbag prosecutor. The greatest threat to civil Liberty is not the police, it is the prosecutors who are immune from liability even if they break the law and put an innocent person in jail. We must remove immunity from both prosecutors and judges.

> even if they break the law and put an innocent person in jail

Which innocent person are you talking about here?

Cosby is legally innocent. He made a deal with the state and the state lied. If the state doesn't keep its agreements, the government is a sham.

"Found not guilty" and "innocent" are not the same thing. "Conviction overturned because of prosecutorial mistakes" and "innocent" aren't even in the same ballpark. Nobody is questioning whether Cosby did it—the evidence at the heart of this is his admission that he did. The issue is whether that evidence could be used in his conviction.

> Cosby is legally innocent

I feel this captures the extent of what you're saying, unless we're making an implicit claim about "using the word innocent in this context has X,Y,Z societal side effects", etc etc

Using the word "innocent" implies that they didn't do what they are accused of.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com