Judd Legum

Judd Legum @JuddLegum

@bmaz @CJMordock You are doing a great job attributing arguments to me that I did not make. Keep it up. — PolitiTweet.org

Judd Legum @JuddLegum

@bmaz I understand there was no immunity agreement. That is what the whole thread is about. It's about Castor's ability to protect Cosby from prosecution based on an alleged promise. — PolitiTweet.org

Judd Legum @JuddLegum

QUESTION: If Cosby only answered Qs in Constand's civil trial because he was promised immunity from criminal prosecution with respect to Constand why, during those same depositions, DID COSBY ALSO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT OTHER WOMEN WHO ALLEGED COSBY SEXUALLY ASSAULTED THEM? — PolitiTweet.org

Judd Legum @JuddLegum

@JillFilipovic I think these are all fair points. I’m less optimistic that the decision will ultimately result in better treatment for any defendant other than Cosby, but I hope I am wrong — PolitiTweet.org

Judd Legum @JuddLegum

13. The idea that Castor heroically helped Constand's case is also BS, as Carrie explains here https://t.co/sccfLaHHAp — PolitiTweet.org

Judd Legum @JuddLegum

@SuSuLeEsq It seems like if there is a promise not to prosecute there should be some documentation of that other than some contradictory emails sent a decade later and that doesn't seem "hardline" — PolitiTweet.org

Judd Legum @JuddLegum

12. Castor's story -- to say it mildly -- lacks credibility, was rejected by the trial court but is effectively revived by the majority of the PA Supreme Court. — PolitiTweet.org

Judd Legum @JuddLegum

11. Castor's story is that he believed Constand (despite never having bothered to meet or interview her) and made this promise as part of a grand bargain to help Constand's civil suit (which hadn't even been filed at the time.) — PolitiTweet.org

Judd Legum @JuddLegum

10. The major of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court believes Castor, when his story makes no sense. The dissent makes quick work of Castor's tale. It's 5 pages long and worth reading. https://t.co/qqJfZ8nkRT https://t.co/JOXVgECXZ3 — PolitiTweet.org

Judd Legum @JuddLegum

9. A much more straightforward reading of the facts was there was no promise in 2005 but once Castor realized (10 years later) that a new prosecution of Cosby would be a political problem for him he recast the nature of his 2005 decision. — PolitiTweet.org

Judd Legum @JuddLegum

8. So back to the "evidence" Cosby "relied" on this promise. Again, nothing in writing. But the court says the evidence is that he testified in the civil trial without invoking the 5th Well, in 2004, Cosby voluntarily talked to the police without invoking the 5th — PolitiTweet.org

Judd Legum @JuddLegum

7. As the dissenting opinion notes, we first learn about the idea that this promise was made in email Castor sent in 2015 when he's trying to convince his successor not to prosecute Cosby BECAUSE CASTOR WAS RUNNING FOR ELECTED OFFICE AND IT WOULD HAVE BEEN EMBARASSING https://t.co/VHpQzJRpgc — PolitiTweet.org

Judd Legum @JuddLegum

6. There is not a single piece of written documentation. No paper trail whatsoever that establishes that such a promise was made until 10 YEARS LATER We are to believe that Cosby's extremely experienced attorneys and Castor just forgot? — PolitiTweet.org

Judd Legum @JuddLegum

5. First, the "evidence" that such a promise was made is based on a 2005 press release that says "District Attorney Castor declines to authorize the filing of criminal charges in connection with this matter" Note there is no mention of a promise never to prosecute https://t.co/n1NFMNBgph — PolitiTweet.org

Judd Legum @JuddLegum

4. But the idea that: a. Castor made such a promise, or b. Cosby relied on it Has little to no factual grounding. — PolitiTweet.org

Judd Legum @JuddLegum

3. The court found that there was an UNCONDITIONAL PROMISE from the DA not to prosecute Cosby and that Cosby relied on that promise. And that, despite the absence of an actual agreement, "fairness" requires that the court to honor this "promise" https://t.co/Me1VHlEZv4 — PolitiTweet.org

Judd Legum @JuddLegum

2. First there are a lot of lawyers on Twitter saying the court found there was a type of "contract" between the DA (Castor) and Cosby where the DA promised he would never be prosecuted The PA Supreme Court court did not find that The court expressly says there was no contract https://t.co/a1qEu971IW — PolitiTweet.org

Judd Legum @JuddLegum

1. A lot of misinformation is floating around about the nature of the PA Supreme Court's decision on Cosby. So I want to clarify a few issues. Let's talk about EXACTLY WHY the court decided it had to invalidate Cosby's trial. And why their rationale is very weak — PolitiTweet.org

Judd Legum @JuddLegum

1. A lot of misinformation is floating around about the nature of the PA Supreme Court's decision on Cosby. So I want to clarify a few issues. Because when you understand the actual basis for the decision it's much harder to justify — PolitiTweet.org

Judd Legum @JuddLegum

@exavierpope I understand your point and it's not unreasonable. I would just say that if the PA legislature wanted to give prosecutors the ability to grant immunity without court approval, they could have done so. But they chose the opposite. Prosecutors don't have the ability to contract — PolitiTweet.org

Judd Legum @JuddLegum

@exavierpope There was no contract, express or implied, between Cosby and the prosecutor — PolitiTweet.org

Judd Legum @JuddLegum

@jduffyrice @JamesGleick @Junts @gvcontent @LEBassett Because I don’t believe that’s what happened. Cosby was not mislead. He was represented by multiple competent lawyers who knew exactly what the law was in PA — PolitiTweet.org

Judd Legum @JuddLegum

@CeliaFateEsq @AlexSilverman @KYWNewsradio Yes, at issue is whether he testified as a witness in the civil suit because he had immunity — PolitiTweet.org

Judd Legum @JuddLegum

@AlexSilverman @KYWNewsradio Yes and such an agreement should not be binding on future prosecutors. Otherwise, why is there this whole provision in state law requiring the courts permission? Would make that completely superfluous — PolitiTweet.org

Judd Legum @JuddLegum

Phylicia Rashad was only a TV lawyer — PolitiTweet.org

Judd Legum @JuddLegum

@NorrinR06303580 Cosby's lawyers were well aware of the requirements for immunity in PA. They don't need to hear it from a prosecutor. — PolitiTweet.org

Judd Legum @JuddLegum

7. So what you have is a wink-wink nudge-nudge deal between the prosecutors and Cosby's high-priced lawyers. It worked out for him until it didn't. And now that courts are saying, even though there was no immunity deal, we need to pretend that there was one to be "fair" — PolitiTweet.org

Judd Legum @JuddLegum

6. The reason the prosecutor didn't apply for immunity is that he knew the fallout he would get for asking immunity for someone that a jury eventually found was guilty. And Cosby's lawyers likely knew that a court would likely deny him immunity. — PolitiTweet.org

Judd Legum @JuddLegum

5. This, to put it mildly, is BS. Cosby had the best lawyers money could buy. Cosby would not be tricked into thinking he had immunity when he did not have immunity. His lawyers were too good for that. Cosby knew exactly what he was doing and he knew he didn't have immunity. — PolitiTweet.org

Judd Legum @JuddLegum

4. The PA Supreme Court, obviously, knows the law about how people can get immunity in Pennsylvania But they claim that, regardless of the letter of the law, FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS requires them to enforce the "agreement" between Cosby and Castor https://t.co/Gx8tlUOk6d — PolitiTweet.org