Bill Cosby trial deadlocked

[MillCreek]

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.

[MillCreek]

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.

[Triphammer]

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.

[lupinus]

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

[Perd Hapley]

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.

[Triphammer]

He's rich, famous, powerful. A self made success. Can't let that stand if he won't tow the line.

[RevDisk]

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.

[HankB]

Mistrial declared.

DA says he'll prosecute again.

More pay for swamp dwellers lawyers.

[Hawkmoon]

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 ... 

[AJ Dual]

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.

[zxcvbob]

I suspect the jury thought he wasn't innocent, but the witnesses were not credible either.

[AmbulanceDriver]

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.

[Hawkmoon]

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.

[230RN]

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

[Hawkmoon]

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.

[Mannlicher]

I loved the part where Cosby's attorney said Gloria Allred should go back to law school.   

[230RN]

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

[Perd Hapley]

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.

[Hawkmoon]

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?

[just Warren]

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.

[lupinus]

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

[MikeB]

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.

[freakazoid]

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.

[Sideways_8]

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.

[lupinus]

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