Bill Cosby Released from Prison

[Big Magilla]

There are two possible scenarios here.

In the first one, Castor did enter into a verbal agreement with Cosby against all precedent because he didn't want to leave a paper trail for his successors to pillory him with in the press.

In the second one, he lied, and for whatever reason - bribery, loyalty to Trump who was was a Cosby fan, or something else - made it up ten years after the fact. The judge in the 2015 filing, 2018 trial, and the successor D.A.s believed the latter. I would like to believe the former, but I don't know - I've seen this Looney Tunes character at Trump's second impeachment trial - he was definitely not playing with a full deck then, may not have ben for some time prior.

[Sonic Youth]

The Railroad Company lost the case

.

But that doesn't matter. All I was doing was copying the definition "implied by fact" Wikipedia provided by quoting from the text of that case decision. The Justices then decided that the railroad company couldn't even satisfy the "implied by fact" standard. Is there anything in that decision that says "implied by fact" agreements are worthless, whether proven or not?

3. Findings of fact showing that the claimant railway company constructed temporary barracks for troops who were guarding its property as well as that of the government, and undertook this without any order from their commanding officer, but voluntarily and without mentioning compensation, apparently from its own desire to provide for the comfort of the troops -- held an insufficient basis for implying an agreement that the government would pay the cost of construction. P. 261 U. S. 599.

IOW, if the party can't demonstrate there was a contractual oblgation, they must demonstrate there was an "implied by fact" agreement. The railroad company was unable to do this. But there is no question that Cosby can demonstrate such an agreement, especially since Castor was kind enough to admit as much under oath.

[Big Magilla]

The Railroad Company lost the case. Implied by law and implied by fact are two different things.

U.S. Supreme Court
Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. United States, 261 U.S. 592 (1923)
Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company v. United States

No. 305

Argued March 12, 1923

Decided April 9, 1923

261 U.S. 592


Syllabus

1. The Dent Act, c. 94, 40 Stat. 1272, was intended to remedy irregularities and informalities in the mode of entering into the agreements to which it relates; not to enlarge the authority of the agents by whom they were made. P. 261 U.S. 596.

2. The "implied agreement" contemplated by this act is not an agreement "implied in law," or quasi contract, but an agreement "implied in fact" founded on a meeting of minds inferred, as a fact, from conduct of the parties in the light of surrounding circumstances. P. 261 U.S. 597.

Page 261 U. S. 593

3. Findings of fact showing that the claimant railway company constructed temporary barracks for troops who were guarding its property as well as that of the government, and undertook this without any order from their commanding officer, but voluntarily and without mentioning compensation, apparently from its own desire to provide for the comfort of the troops -- held an insufficient basis for implying an agreement that the government would pay the cost of construction. P. 261 U. S. 599.

[Sonic Youth]

I looked up "Meeting of the Minds" in that great law journal, Wikipedia. It said,

"In Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. United States (1923)[7] the US Supreme Court said an 'implied in fact' contract is, 'an agreement ... founded upon a meeting of minds, which, although not embodied in an express contract, is inferred, as a fact, from conduct of the parties showing, in the light of the surrounding circumstances, their tacit understanding...the awareness of a legal obligation is established, not through each party's subjective understanding of the terms, but on 'objective indicators,' based on what each party said and did."

I think that applies here.

[Big Magilla]

One of the Assistant D.A.s was on MSNBC this morning saying the alleged agreement was a lie, that Castor had been a D.A. for many years, had made non-prosecution before. He claimed to have notified the plaintiff or her attorneys in 2005 but they say they were never informed.

She also said that Castor had no authority to provide blanket immunity over future prosecution for similar crimes outside of his jurisdiction.

[Big Magilla]

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has overturned his conviction on sexual assault finding his 2018 trial unfair because a former D.A. handling the case had told him he wouldn't be prosecuted if he cooperated in testifying in the original 2005 case filed against him for sexual assault. The succeeding D.A. reneged on the promise. He cannot be re-tried.

Bruce Castor, the original D.A. who made the promise was one of Trump's idiot defense attorneys at his second impeachment trial.

[Big Magilla]

You don't need anything in writing if the prosecutor, Castor, testified under oath that he made this immunity deal with Cosby.

Sadly, I think the judges were without other options. If Castor made that "promise" -- and, given the lack of outrage in legal circles (as opposed to pundit circles), it seems clear he did -- it's binding.

That was the ruling, but it was unprecedented.

Allegedly Castor's successors were not aware of the "promise" he made to Cosby. Castor had issued a press release in 2005 saying he decided not to charge Cosby but did not disclose that there was a non-prosecution document in place. When he testified at Cosby's 2018 trial that there was, the presiding judge didn't believe him because there was no witness to the agreement. That's why these things are supposed to be in writing.

It opens up a whole new world of former prosecutors being able to claim such agreements were made after the fact.

[Mister Tee]

Sadly, I think the judges were without other options. If Castor made that "promise" -- and, given the lack of outrage in legal circles (as opposed to pundit circles), it seems clear he did -- it's binding. Castor may have been favoring celebrity when he made the deal -- it reeks of the Alex Acosta/Jeffrey Epstein soft treatment -- but, once that was done, it was absurd for the succeeding prosecutors to go forward with this: it's like playing the ace when you know your opponent can trump it.

Did they maybe think they could get Cosby in jail for some period of time (as they have), and that was better than letting him skate free forever? Because otherwise it seems like incredibly poor professional judgment to take things this far, knowing it had to end like this.

[Sonic Youth]

I'm wondering who these judges were that made this ruling.

I don't know of any place else in the world where a defendant's "understanding" that he was being given immunity would be valid unless it was in writing signed by both defendant and prosecutor and approved by the court with jurisdiction over the matter. Nothing was in writing in this case.

You don't need anything in writing if the prosecutor, Castor, testified under oath that he made this immunity deal with Cosby.

The judges did what they had to do unfortunately. Castor was one of Trump's lawyers, so a lot of people are taking special glee in laying the blame on him, but I don't know if that's where blame properly lies. Certainly one set of prosecutors fucked up, and it was either Castor or his successors, though I'm open to blaming both. But I'm not sure what the judges did incorrectly.

[Big Magilla]

I'm wondering who these judges were that made this ruling.

I don't know of any place else in the world where a defendant's "understanding" that he was being given immunity would be valid unless it was in writing signed by both defendant and prosecutor and approved by the court with jurisdiction over the matter. Nothing was in writing in this case.

[OscarGuy]

Well, I guess he'll just get to die at home like most rich criminals.

[Big Magilla]

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has overturned his conviction on sexual assault finding his 2018 trial unfair because a former D.A. handling the case had told him he wouldn't be prosecuted if he cooperated in testifying in the original 2015 case filed against him for sexual assault. The succeeding D.A. reneged on the promise. He cannot be re-tried.

Bruce Castor, the original D.A. who made the promise was one of Trump's idiot defense attorneys at his second impeachment trial.