Andrew Schulz's Flagrant with Akaash Singh
Andrew Schulz's Flagrant with Akaash Singh
"The case has now been thrown out, but he's still got convicted. And based on the evidence, the jury felt like he was a rapist evidence that they got both from the women that were against him, but also that he said in this 2005 case that couldn't be used against him." — Mark
"So the Pennsylvania Supreme Court came out and said, for the reasons detail below, we hold that the prosecutor makes an unconditional promise of non prosecution. So therefore the case is dismissed more or less." — Mark
"It's not a verdict on guilt or innocence, but just the case has to get thrown out." — Mark
The podcast episode dissects the legal maneuvers leading to Bill Cosby's release from prison. Speakers explain that a prior agreement between Cosby and a prosecutor, which involved waiving his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in exchange for a promise of non-prosecution, was central to his legal challenge. The core of the argument for his release hinged on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's finding that this promise was indeed unconditional, making the subsequent criminal charges procedurally flawed. This ruling, they emphasize, is not an acquittal or a declaration of innocence but a dismissal based on a breach of a prosecutorial agreement.
Further discussion explores the distinction between civil and criminal cases, referencing how a civil conviction (like O.J. Simpson's) differs from a criminal one. The speakers highlight that while Cosby's testimony in the 2005 civil case, which included admitting to giving women Quaaludes, was damning and consistent with accusers' testimonies, it could not be used in the criminal trial due to the non-prosecution agreement. This created a complex situation where a jury might have believed he committed the acts, but the legal system, due to procedural issues, had to release him.
The conversation then broadens to reflect on the public's perception of justice versus the legal system's technicalities. The hosts ponder the emotional reaction to such a ruling, especially when comparing it to cases where individuals serve full sentences for lesser offenses. The episode touches on the role of legal teams, including a mention of a lawyer potentially connected to Donald Trump, and the broader implications for defendants facing similar situations with conditional or unconditional prosecutorial agreements.