Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: MillCreek on June 15, 2017, 06:33:19 PM
-
How interesting that despite several days of deliberation, the Bill Cosby trial remains deadlocked. I wonder if a mistrial will end up being declared, and if the prosecution sets another trial. I suspect a second trial may depend on how many jurors were voting for conviction.
-
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/17/532752574/judge-declares-mistrial-in-bill-cosby-sexual-assault-case?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=news
And it's a mistrial.
-
How many think that these accusations and trials would never have happened if Bill Cosby had never broken ranks a told black men they needed to be fathers to their children.
-
How many think that these accusations and trials would never have happened if Bill Cosby had never broken ranks a told black men they needed to be fathers to their children.
Why do you hate women and apple pie?
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
-
How many think that these accusations and trials would never have happened if Bill Cosby had never broken ranks a told black men they needed to be fathers to their children.
Meh. Plenty of black people have been saying that for a long time.
-
He's rich, famous, powerful. A self made success. Can't let that stand if he won't tow the line.
-
How many think that these accusations and trials would never have happened if Bill Cosby had never broken ranks a told black men they needed to be fathers to their children.
Hopefully near none. More realistically, probably a couple.
The accusations and trials are over allegations that Bill Cosby engaged in sexual assault of drugged victims. If found guilty, the accusations and trials would have never happened if he had not done so. If found innocent, well, still not good for him. Media typically believes guilty regardless of whether found innocent or guilty. Unless said person hits some metric that is constantly changing.
-
Mistrial declared.
DA says he'll prosecute again.
More pay for swamp dwellers lawyers.
-
Cosby's spokescritter is making noises as if Cosby had been acquitted. Not so. He wasn't convicted, but neither was he found not guilty. A mistrial is like an annulled marriage -- it's like it never happened, and the parties are in the exact same situation as they were in before the trial began.
Stay tuned ... [popcorn]
-
We'll never know for sure, but my money's on that the defense did a good job in Voir dire, and found one or two holdouts who were just unwilling to convict Alexander "Scotty" Scott, Mr. Picture-Pages, and Dr. Huxtable no matter what.
-
I suspect the jury thought he wasn't innocent, but the witnesses were not credible either.
-
I think the big challenge the jury faced is with how long ago this allegedly happened. No physical evidence. Only the testimony of the victim, and the accused. I would have a really hard time (not impossible, but a very high mountain to climb) saying I believed someone was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt without at least *some* concrete evidence of their actions.
-
The more I see, the more I think he needs to be re-tried ... and convicted.
http://pagesix.com/2017/06/18/cosby-knew-he-would-get-a-hung-jury-all-along/?_ga=2.129714703.2043691547.1497793965-2129158621.1497793965
On the one hand, he's still claiming that he's innocent. (Like, what else would he say, with multiple civil suits on the horizon.) But all he's looking for is ONE holdout to get him off. An innocent man, if there was really "no case," wouldn't be pinning his hopes on a lone juror engaging in jury nullification. He'd be expecting a finding of Not Guilty.
-
I have difficulty with mistrials due to a hung jury. Mistrial on technical grounds or suborned jury member, yeah, but it seems to me if a strong enough case can't be made to get a 100% consensus of guilt on the first go-round, tough noogies, Prosecutor, the defendant should be found innocent and that should be that, absent provable jury-tampering or new evidence or the Courthouse burned down or something.
Sorry, Mr./Ms./Mrs. Prosecutor, if you couldn't lay out your case with all the best evidence you have at hand well enough to convince 6 or 12 people to unanimously convict... too bad on you.
Just seems like the right way to go. I'm sure there are abstruse technical-legal reasons to have a new trial, but on the face of it, as a non legal beagle, I still have a problem with "new trials" due to "hung" juries.
I'm not defending Cosby, I just have an ethical problem with hung jury mistrials / retrials.
Sometimes The Law is an ass.
And don't take that as an out-of-context quote. Take it as a direct opinion of Terry, 230RN: Sometimes The Law is an ass.
Terry
-
I have to disagree, Terry. Both sides are entitled to a verdict, and a hung jury does not produce a verdict. Your argument applies to the other side, as well: If the defense had a strong defense, they should be able to convince all 12 jurors to vote for Not Guilty. The standard for a criminal trial is "beyond reasonable doubt." If the jury is hung, that means the defense team couldn't even persuade all the jurors that there was reasonable doubt.
-
I loved the part where Cosby's attorney said Gloria Allred should go back to law school.
-
I have to disagree, Terry. Both sides are entitled to a verdict, and a hung jury does not produce a verdict. Your argument applies to the other side, as well: If the defense had a strong defense, they should be able to convince all 12 jurors to vote for Not Guilty. The standard for a criminal trial is "beyond reasonable doubt." If the jury is hung, that means the defense team couldn't even persuade all the jurors that there was reasonable doubt.
I submit that the very fact of a non-unanimous jury deliberation ("hung jury") means there is ipso facto reasonable doubt. The verdict should therefore be "not guilty" in such situations.
"Your argument applies to the other side, as well: If the defense had a strong defense, they should be able to convince all 12 jurors to vote for Not Guilty." I find this to be illogical. It does not apply to the defense side and merely stating it does not make it true. All the defense has to do is present enough evidence to create reasonable doubt about guilt.
In the case of a hung jury, the defense obviously has done so.
I said it, and I'm stickin' to it, and I'm done with it.
Terry
-
I loved the part where Cosby's attorney said Gloria Allred should go back to law school.
I suppose, given the nature of the charges, telling her to go back to the kitchen would have been counter-productive.
-
I submit that the very fact of a non-unanimous jury deliberation ("hung jury") means there is ipso facto reasonable doubt. The verdict should therefore be "not guilty" in such situations.
"Your argument applies to the other side, as well: If the defense had a strong defense, they should be able to convince all 12 jurors to vote for Not Guilty." I find this to be illogical. It does not apply to the defense side and merely stating it does not make it true. All the defense has to do is present enough evidence to create reasonable doubt about guilt.
In the case of a hung jury, the defense obviously has done so.
I said it, and I'm stickin' to it, and I'm done with it.
Terry
In the case of a hung jury, the defense has NOT created a reasonable doubt in the minds of all twelve jurors -- and the prosecution obviously HAS convinced some of those twelve jurors that the defendant IS guilty beyond the aforesaid reasonable doubt. That's why the verdict should NOT be not guilty, any more than it should be guilty. A verdict requires all the jurors to agree.
Cosby's defense convinced some jurors that there was reasonable doubt, but they didn't convince all of them. Your suggestion that there should automatically be a verdict of not guilty when not all the jurors think he's not guilty is what's illogical. Suppose the jury was hung with eleven votes to convict, and one hold-out who just wasn't going to convict Fat Albert regardless of what evidence was put in front of the jury? Why should the verdict be not guilty?
-
I submit that the very fact of a non-unanimous jury deliberation ("hung jury") means there is ipso facto reasonable doubt. The verdict should therefore be "not guilty" in such situations.
"Your argument applies to the other side, as well: If the defense had a strong defense, they should be able to convince all 12 jurors to vote for Not Guilty." I find this to be illogical. It does not apply to the defense side and merely stating it does not make it true. All the defense has to do is present enough evidence to create reasonable doubt about guilt.
In the case of a hung jury, the defense obviously has done so.
I said it, and I'm stickin' to it, and I'm done with it.
Terry
I'm with you. If you can get a certain percentage of jurors say 1/4th or maybe 1/3rd to vote not guilty the defense should win.
I also think there should be three possible verdicts: Guilty, Not Guilty, and Proven Innocent. The difference in the last two being that with Proven Innocent (which would have to be unanimous) the jury has agreed that the case should not have been brought at all and that the prosecutor and the judge have thus abused the rights of the defendant and now must face a trail of their own to keep their jobs and maybe even their freedom. Plus losing opens them up to a civil trial as well.
-
I suppose, given the nature of the charges, telling her to go back to the kitchen would have been counter-productive.
Better than telling her to take a chill pill.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
-
I have two problems with this.
1. The accuser already entered into a settlement with him in a civil matter. That should end it before a criminal prosecution starts. If not the accuser should be returning the monies in the civil matter at the very least. The libertarian in me says that two parties can have a matter decided outside criminal court and the government can't then choose to open those records to setup a criminal case without some justification that there was some fraud involved on one side or the other.
2. This happened a very long time ago, we have statutes of limitations for a reason. It can be very difficult to have a fair trial on either side after such a long time passes. This gets back to number one. The accuser had a choice all those years ago to have a criminal charge filed or pursue a civil case. I don't believe you should do one and then convert to the other years and years later. Some states are trying to change the statute of limitations on these types of crimes or have already. I believe that is also an issue for some of the same reasons. Evidence may no longer be available and memories are not infallible. Also potential victims do have a responsibility to pursue changes within a reasonable period of time. It can create doubt purely on them waitingon whether there was a crime at that moment or they decided maybe they felt different years later.
-
Your argument applies to the other side, as well: If the defense had a strong defense, they should be able to convince all 12 jurors to vote for Not Guilty.
Except we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. It is up to them to prove that he is guilty.
-
2. This happened a very long time ago, we have statutes of limitations for a reason. It can be very difficult to have a fair trial on either side after such a long time passes.
Not all crimes have a statute of limitations. Murder doesn't. Rape doesn't. Why should they? Oh you murdered someone 10 years ago and didn't get caught. Welp, statute of limitations is out so that means you're good to go. You murder, rape, grievously assault, then you should be punishable period no matter when it happened.
-
Not all crimes have a statute of limitations. Murder doesn't. Rape doesn't. Why should they? Oh you murdered someone 10 years ago and didn't get caught. Welp, statute of limitations is out so that means you're good to go. You murder, rape, grievously assault, then you should be punishable period no matter when it happened.
Ordinarily I'd agree. However with a case like I'm skeptical
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
-
2. This happened a very long time ago, we have statutes of limitations for a reason. It can be very difficult to have a fair trial on either side after such a long time passes. This gets back to number one. The accuser had a choice all those years ago to have a criminal charge filed or pursue a civil case. I don't believe you should do one and then convert to the other years and years later. Some states are trying to change the statute of limitations on these types of crimes or have already. I believe that is also an issue for some of the same reasons. Evidence may no longer be available and memories are not infallible. Also potential victims do have a responsibility to pursue changes within a reasonable period of time. It can create doubt purely on them waitingon whether there was a crime at that moment or they decided maybe they felt different years later.
The statute of limitations is why the other 59 women Cosby is accused of raping (under similar circumstances) aren't also co-complainants.
This accuser DID make her complaint a number of years ago, and the DA at the time chose not to prosecute. Then a judge unsealed the contents of Cosby's deposition and this DA read it and said "Holy mackerel!"
-
I have to disagree, Terry. Both sides are entitled to a verdict, and a hung jury does not produce a verdict. Your argument applies to the other side, as well: If the defense had a strong defense, they should be able to convince all 12 jurors to vote for Not Guilty. The standard for a criminal trial is "beyond reasonable doubt." If the jury is hung, that means the defense team couldn't even persuade all the jurors that there was reasonable doubt.
This would be reasonable. Except in the United States, folks are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. Sadly we've long since moved away from that.
-
Anyone seen a reference to the jury breakdown? When I was prosecuting, the most important factor in determining retrial or not was that breakdown. If it was close to conviction, you try again. Half or less for conviction, call it done. I had one hung jury in my career. It was 11-1 for conviction. A bunch of the 11 sought me out to tell me the one for acquittal made a point of saying she would never vote for conviction, as it was God's place to judge, not a human's. Convicted the second time around rather quickly.
-
Shouldn't something like that have come out in voyer dear?
Seems to me that was an outlier case anyhow where either the Prosecutor did not do his job in jury-selection or the prospective juror lied.
I reiterate:
All the defense has to do is present enough evidence to create reasonable doubt about guilt.
In the case of a hung jury, the defense obviously has done so.
I might add here as a throwaway concept, that the "statistics" of the jury split does not matter --reasonable doubt has been created. Thus: Innocent.
(I'm breaking my self-imposed rule about being done with this one.)
-
I would argue that some people are unreasonable, and those people could be jurors. So just because 1 person had a doubt, it doesn't follow that reasonable doubt exists.
See Chris's example. Or Google Dave Chapelle's skit on the R. Kelly trial.
-
In my case, should I have done a better job in voire dire to dig the information out of the juror who would not vote guilty? Maybe. Don't know that I would have ever known to ask a potential juror if she believed that the job of rendering judgment was solely within God's province, or if we mere mortals were allowed to do such things... Frankly, I don't know that any judge I've been before would allow me to ask religious based questions out of respect for the rights (and privacy) or potential jurors.
Here's the thing with a hung jury. When the judge gets wind of the jury being hung up, they will call the jury in and give them an instruction called the Allen charge. Basically it's when a judge encourages a jury to reach a verdict. It ranges from very mild encouragement, to the one's trial lawyers call a "dynamite charge" in which a judge will essentially order the jury to make a decision (not in so many words, but in tone of voice). If after the Allen charge a jury is still hung, as a prosecutor I would absolutely want to know the number of jurors each way, and to talk to the jurors if possible. It would let me know (as in my case) if it was one person holding up the verdict for illogical reasons, if it was close, or if it was not even close. Just as in my case where it was 11-1 for conviction, I've also seen situations where it was 9-3 or 10-2 for acquittal. If you're the prosecutor and hear that, you damn well better recognize that you're done.
An aside, the defendant in my case sued me from prison for $115,000,000 for wrongful prosecution. I was able to get the case thrown out, but the filing of the suit cost my wife and I our first choice of houses because the bank withdrew approval for the mortgage when they learned about the lawsuit. He refiled in federal court, alleging a civil rights violation based on racial discrimination. He lost that one as well because the victim of the burglary was also an African American.
-
The statute of limitations is why the other 59 women Cosby is accused of raping (under similar circumstances) aren't also co-complainants.
This accuser DID make her complaint a number of years ago, and the DA at the time chose not to prosecute. Then a judge unsealed the contents of Cosby's deposition and this DA read it and said "Holy mackerel!"
Yeah no. That isn't quite an accurate timeline of events. Here is one that is that more accurately depicts the events.
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/bill-cosby-trial-complete-timeline-happened-2004/story?id=47799458
I still think you can't keep trying to bring charges against someone decades after things happen without concrete evidence. DAs all the time decide not to press charges for various reasons. You will note it wasn't the same DA that declined to press charges as indicated in your reply and the new DA was using this as a political stunt to get elected; it was big news around here at the time, it was in his elect me statements and ads.
http://www.montgomerynews.com/thecolonial/news/election-steele-defeats-castor-in-montco-da-race/article_024fb6b1-caa5-5d06-87e2-d8633eeb2bde.html
If some of those 59 women had been more proactive in pressing charges then maybe we wouldn't have 59. I'm not blaming them, but at the same time we can't have a judicial system that suddenly allows decades old charges to be filed for which there can likely be no physical evidence and it comes down to he said she said. If we do people would be able to criminally charge people of things on a whim at most any time. While in the court of public opinion that 59 makes a difference under our justice system it doesn't. Whether it should or not I suppose is debatable, but that's why they couldn't all testify in this case.
-
Wanna know who to blame for old cases coming up mich later? The legislature. A lot of states took the statute of limitations in sex cases and changed it from 5-10 years to 20 years. Did the same for some other high level felonies. Thats why you're seeing such old cases coming to court.
-
In my case, should I have done a better job in voire dire to dig the information out of the juror who would not vote guilty? Maybe. Don't know that I would have ever known to ask a potential juror if she believed that the job of rendering judgment was solely within God's province, or if we mere mortals were allowed to do such things... Frankly, I don't know that any judge I've been before would allow me to ask religious based questions out of respect for the rights (and privacy) or potential jurors.
Oh, boy, I wish you'd IDed yourself as being the Prosecutor involved; I wouldn't have been so sharp-cornered about it. I apologize.
However, yours still seems to be an outlying case. I thought it was routine for someone, Judge or the attorneys, to ask if there was any reason the prospective juror could not render a fair opinion under the law --without delving into religious aspects. In that case, I would put the shortfall on the juror.
Simply, if she had been asked that, she would have been lying if she said no. If she had told the truth ("yes"), she would have been rejected. I did offer this as a possibility in my previous post. (I have a funny story about that if anyone's interested.)
Here's the thing with a hung jury. When the judge gets wind of the jury being hung up, they will call the jury in and give them an instruction called the Allen charge. Basically it's when a judge encourages a jury to reach a verdict. It ranges from very mild encouragement, to the one's trial lawyers call a "dynamite charge" in which a judge will essentially order the jury to make a decision (not in so many words, but in tone of voice). If after the Allen charge a jury is still hung, as a prosecutor I would absolutely want to know the number of jurors each way, and to talk to the jurors if possible. It would let me know (as in my case) if it was one person holding up the verdict for illogical reasons, if it was close, or if it was not even close. Just as in my case where it was 11-1 for conviction, I've also seen situations where it was 9-3 or 10-2 for acquittal. If you're the prosecutor and hear that, you damn well better recognize that you're done.
I don't know what to say about that. Under my theory of "a hung jury constitutes reasonable doubt on the face of it," I don't think juries should be polled at all. After all, their deliberations are assumed to be secret, are they not? If so, then no post-deliberation questions should be asked of any of them... nor should they be allowed to discuss their decision-making process after the fact... "book deals" or no "book deals."
The case you iterated still seems to be an outlier to me, and under the notion that it's better for ten guilty to go free than one innocent to be punished, that should have been it, period, in the first trial, and "The defendant is free to go."
Yes, he can "do it again," if released, but the hope is that if he is a repeater, sooner or later he will be caught again and prosecuted again, hopefully with stronger "12 to 0" evidence.
An aside, the defendant in my case sued me from prison for $115,000,000 for wrongful prosecution. I was able to get the case thrown out, but the filing of the suit cost my wife and I our first choice of houses because the bank withdrew approval for the mortgage when they learned about the lawsuit. He refiled in federal court, alleging a civil rights violation based on racial discrimination. He lost that one as well because the victim of the burglary was also an African American.
I'm really sorry to hear that, and I hate to be a prick about it, but that would not have happened if he had been released under the first (hung) jury's decision --however bad it would have been under some kind of omniscient "Cosmic Supervision."
I remain intransigent about my opinion that hung juries are automatically "not guilty" decisions.... again, since "reasonable doubt" has obviously been achieved by the defense.
Terry, 230RN
-
No problems. I was a young prosecutor. Never thought to ask a question like that in voire dire. Learned that lesson, and didn't make that mistake again. Two mistakes I made that I still recall. Learned from them both.
Anyways, to be clear, the only person who has a right to poll a jury is the defendant after a guilty verdict. The defendant has the right to hear each juror say guilty after the verdict is announced. Seen it happen, especially in capital cases. Guess the hope is that someone will change their mind when they have to stand and say it. Never seen that happen, but I guess that's the vote.
What I'm referring to is an informal polling. After a verdict is announced, attorneys will routinely hang out by the jury room to see if any of the jurors will talk about the case. First, it's the best source of feedback for how you did in the case. Gotta see what works and what didn't work so you can improve. With a hung jury, you can ask the jurors how close the vote was to see if you should try again. I found jurors often wanted to talk. Many had questions about the case, wanting to understand rulings on issues. A lot of times, they'll have questions seeking the whole story, not just what the rules of evidence let them hear. That is what I meant by polling. And, in a high profile case like Cosby, I can guarantee that a few of the jurors will want to talk, and will also want to gain their fame and do TV interviews and such. It will be interesting to hear what they say...
-
So far, one alternate has stated that he would have voted to convict.
I would like to know the basic breakdown of the jury votes. I doubt it will come out, but I'd also like to know the votes by color of juror. The jury included both Blacks and Whites, and it's quite possible that there was at least one Black juror who simply wasn't going to vote to convict a black man of anything in a white men's court.
-
No problems. I was a young prosecutor. Never thought to ask a question like that in voire dire. Learned that lesson, and didn't make that mistake again. One mistakes I made that I still recall. learned from them both.
Anyways, to be clear, the only person who has a right to poll a jury is the defendant after a guilty verdict. The defendant has the right to hear each juror say guilty after the verdict is announced. Seen it happen, especially in capital cases. Guess the hope is that someone will change their mind when they have to stand and say it. Never seen that happen, but I guess that's the vote.
What I'm referring to is an informal polling. After a verdict is announced, attorneys will routinely hang out by the jury room to see if any of the jurors will talk about the case. First, it's the best source of feedback for how you did in the case. Gotta see what works and what didn't work so you can improve. With a hung jury, you can ask the jurors how close the vote was to see if you should try again. I found jurors often wanted to talk. Many had questions about the case, wanting to understand rulings on issues. A lot of times, they'll have questions seeking the whole story, not just what the rules of evidence let them hear. That is what I meant by polling. And, in a high profile case like Cosby, I can guarantee that a few of the jurors will want to talk, and will also want to gain their fame and do TV interviews and such. It will be interesting to hear what they say...
The one murder case I sat on, the defense attorney made all jury members say they were for a guilty verdict. I wasn't one of the final converts so it was no issue for me. This was a case where the guy essentially gave a recorded confession to police. Without that, there would have been no trial. Only other thing pointing to him was a prostitute who fingered him.
There was discussion with the prosecutor afterward. Some of us stayed to hear the sentencing also and the defense attorney talked to us after that. The defense attorney's line was just a big guilt trip so I didn't stick around long for that.
-
The one murder case I sat on, the defense attorney made all jury members say they were for a guilty verdict. I wasn't one of the final converts so it was no issue for me. This was a case where the guy essentially gave a recorded confession to police. Without that, there would have been no trial. Only other thing pointing to him was a prostitute who fingered him.
There was discussion with the prosecutor afterward. Some of us stayed to hear the sentencing also and the defense attorney talked to us after that. The defense attorney's line was just a big guilt trip so I didn't stick around long for that.
Phrasing!
-
Phrasing!
Extra charge for that.
-
"Anyways, to be clear, the only person who has a right to poll a jury is the defendant after a guilty verdict."
Good point, I'll yield on that one.
The funny story I mentioned involved my getting rear-ended at a stop sign and the guy wanted to fight his ticket on the grounds that I had unexpectedly stopped twice at the sign for another oncoming vehicle, and he didn't see me stop the second time.
Short version is that when the group of potential jurors were asked if there was any reason they couldn't render a fair verdict, one guy stood up and said he was a dispatcher for Public Service Company (the local power company at the time) which always had a "million" trucks running around "everywhere."
He said, rather emphatically, even to pounding his fist into his other hand, that "we constantly drum it into the drivers' heads that there is no excuse for a rear end accident."
A fist-pound for each word from "no" to "accident."
Even the Judge cracked a little grin.
Excused from duty for that trial.
The plaintiff (me*) won.
Terry, 230RN
*Actually, my insurance company lawyer won, since I had subordinated my legal rights in the matter to my insurance company. I was just a witness for the plaintiff.
-
Phrasing!
For once it wasn't me that was in the gutter. :angel: I thought I was borrowing from some gangster movie or something (and not a porn parody).
I will be back in there shortly I am sure.
-
I find it interesting that people hearing about cases in the media tend to believe the accusers if there are multiple people making accusations no matter if they are credible or not. They tend to automatically assume guilt. I get the impression that all a lawyer really needs to do is dig up a couple dozen people prepared to lie and he can sue or convict anyone. On the other side of that, I think a number of the death penalty cases I have heard about where DNA evidence is clearing people seem to have originally involved mistaken witness testimony. Not quite the same thing, but it came to mind since he-said/she-said type cases with little or no physical evidence came up earlier. There are many cases of people lying or who are just wrong in their recollection of events. If there is no evidence or information backing up the claim, I think I would find it difficult to convict someone.
A case I did NOT get picked for a few years ago apparently involved inappropriate touching of a minor. The minor being a nearly adult teenager on a date with a 19 or 20 year old man. After a quiet argument between the lawyers and judge up front, the embarrassed looking judge restated the law: if the teenage girl grabs the hand of the man and puts it on her private areas, it is not illegal, but if she removes her hand and he does not immediately remove his hand, it becomes illegal. I don't know anything more about the case, I was just glad I didn't get picked for the jury.
-
^ "I find it interesting that people hearing about cases in the media tend to believe the accusers if there are multiple people making accusations no matter if they are credible or not. They tend to automatically assume guilt. "
I've noticed that a lot with our radical groups.
Bullhorns matter.
Terry, 230RN
-
A while back I heard the lawyer for the woman accuser has a history of cases like this which is one of the reasons I have tried to avoid assuming anything about it.
-
A while back I heard the lawyer for the woman accuser has a history of cases like this which is one of the reasons I have tried to avoid assuming anything about it.
That's certainly a bad sign. I'm sure if I needed to file a lawsuit over something involving involuntary sexual abuse I would probably seek out an attorney with a history of lawsuits regarding copyright infringement. Wouldn't you?
-
Yep, Gloria Allred. Her specialty seems to be women with made-up stories of sexual assault (like some Trump accusers back during the campaign. IIRC, all those suits have been dropped.)
-
Heard this morning on the radio that the vote was 10-2 for conviction. If I was prosecuting, that would likely be close enough for me to try again.
-
http://www.newser.com/story/244662/cosby-juror-10-of-12-voted-to-convict.html
Sounds a lot like jury nullification at work.
-
2 mistrials in Ohio murder case:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a-2nd-mistrial-jury-deadlocks-in-ohio-cops-murder-retrial/ar-BBD3ECT?OCID=ansmsnnews11