judge declares mistrial in cosby case

a reply to: Boadicea

Then why even have a not guilty option. Just ask who finds him guilty.

a reply to: TinySickTears

Probably guilty given the number of people who have spoken up, but it is the reactions that are troubling...

Hes getting off because hes black

Hes getting off because hes rich/celebrity


Maybe hes getting off because its a weak case with inconsistent testimony by the primary witness. Wouldnt you find it hard to believe someone would go to a show performed by their rapist and buy him a shirt as a present after something like this happened? And thats the only hard evidence in this trial.

www.vulture.com...

Its good to see someone like Dennis Hastert finally get justice for his sexual crimes, but it doesnt always end that way.

Its unfortunate she was convinced she should do this for what seems like political motivation more than anything.

Hopefully she is able to get something out of the civil trial, although not sure how that works given that there was already a settlement.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Sooooo.... You're saying there's a chance!


It could happen tomorrow in the current psychotic US political and judicial climate.

originally posted by: Montana
Sooooo.... You're saying there's a chance!

Yeah, .003333%. Repeating of course.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Of course!

originally posted by: Montana
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Sooooo.... You're saying there's a chance!

.

lloyd christmas??

a reply to: TinySickTears
a mstrial is not the same thing as beng found innocent just means they might try him again with different jurors if i understand it right.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Boadicea

Then why even have a not guilty option. Just ask who finds him guilty.

Well, if we want to play semantics, then that would work. Technically, no juror can know for sure if someone is innocent anyway, so the best they can do is vote "not proven guilty. Which means that in effect the jury can really only vote on the case presented by the prosecution -- not the guilt or innocence of the defendant.

And if the prosecution is so incompetent (or something) that they cannot prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt with all the resources and technology available to them, all the more reason not to give the state carte blanche to persecute the people ad infinitum.

In comparison to police committing murder with video proof and then getting paid vacation & a not guilty verdict. This is not "Bull#" this is, random women coming out of the wood works to say they've been raped. Much like when trump said grab her by the pussy, then out of no where, women who've been raped quickly brushed under the rug though.

a reply to: intrptr

Let me guess, you're black.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Have you read anything about it? I didn't think so. Double jeopardy was not mentioned in the case. The court said that it was 'permissible'. There is a world of difference between it being permissible and constitutional when a defendant is pleading double jeopardy.

Although the question in Perez was indeed whether a defendant could be retried following a hung jury, nowhere in the unanimous opinion authored by Justice Story, is either double jeopardy or the fifth amendment mentioned. This failure to refer to the Constitution was not inadvertent. In 1824, the hung jury question did not implicate the double jeopardy clause of the fifth amendment. At that time, the Court adhered to the English common law view that jeopardy does not attach until a verdict is rendered.

Since Perez, however, the Supreme Court has held that jeopardy attaches before a verdict is rendered—specifically when the jury is impaneled and sworn. In doing so, it created an issue that did not obtain when Perez was decided.

Lots of things can be permissible in court without a proper objection.

originally posted by: craterman
The court said that it was 'permissible'.

Which makes it Constitutional.

If you feel mistrials are double jeopardy I suggest you file an amicus brief and take your argument to the Supreme Court.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Lawyers are indoctrinated and therefore they do not object. They're getting paid by the hour BTW, all the better to let it drag on. Besides, I have no standing to appeal the Supreme Court.

Which makes it Constitutional.

Is it constitutional for someone to steal your car?? Is it permissible if you say so after the fact?? Constitutional and permissible ARE NOT THE SAME.

originally posted by: craterman
Lawyers are indoctrinated and therefore they do not object. They're getting paid by the hour BTW, all the better to let it drag on. Besides, I have no standing to appeal the Supreme Court.

So all the great legal scholars of the past two hundred years are all wrong because they get paid? Even the ones working pro bono?

Yet you, the veritable Dream Team of ATS, somehow, despite not having an accredited law degree, knows that the Supreme Court is wrong but fails to do anything? What a totally lame cop out.

If the prosecutor has a case he can go for a retrial. Though if he couldn't convince the jury in this trial he needs to look at his evidence.

Problem was it's based on witness testimony and a good atty can tear that apart. Now he could be innocent or he's got a really good atty.