In a 61-ruled decision, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court overturned Bill Cosby's 2018 conviction for sexual assault. The court also ruled that Cosby could not be prosecuted for future crimes, preventing the possibility of a fresh trial. Wednesday's ruling might feel unfair because Cosby is a sexual predator. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is not to blame for this. Bruce Castor, a Republican ex-district attorney, is responsible for not prosecuting Cosby in 2005. Castor's questionable deal, which two justices implied was corrupt, formed the basis for the court's conclusion that Cosby was not entitled to due process. This decision is a sad reminder of the harm that prosecutors can cause when they use their power as recklessly 16 years ago as Castor.AdvertisementAdvertisementAdvertisementWednesday's decision is rooted in 2002 when Cosby met Andrea Constand via mutual connections at Temple University. Constand became a mentor of Cosby, and Constand visited his home in 2004. He gave her three blue pills which he called "friends" and she reluctantly took them. Then she felt dizzy and couldn't move or speak. She was able to see Cosby touch her breasts and penetrate her vagina using his fingers. He then used her hand to masturbate. Her pants were not zipped, and her bra was out-of-place when she returned later.Subscribe to the Slatest Newsletter Get a daily email update with the latest stories. Signing you up was not possible due to an error Please try again. To use this form, please enable jаvascript. Email address: I would like to receive updates on Slate special offers. You agree to our Privacy Policy & Terms by signing up. Thank you for signing up! You can cancel your subscription at any time.Constand reported Constand's assault to police in 2005. Castor was at the time serving as Montgomery County's district attorney. This was where Cosbys house was located. Castor concluded that Cosby could not be prosecuted criminally and claimed Constand was not a credible witness. Castor instead told Constand that he had devised a plan to help Cosby win a civil lawsuit. Castor issued a press release in which he stated that he was the representative of Pennsylvania and had decided not to prosecute Cosby. Castor stated that he had taken Cosby's Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination and stripped him of it. Cosby could not be charged for the alleged sexual assault. Constand filed a civil lawsuit. Cosby, at deposition, admitted that he had previously given quaaludes in the past to women with whom he wanted to have sexual relations. The case was eventually settled for $3.38million.AdvertisementAdvertisementFast forward to 2015. Fast forward to 2015. Risa Vetriferman, who succeeded Castor as Montgomery County District Attorney, decided that the Constand case should be reopened. Kevin Steele, her successor as district attorney, later accused Cosby of sexual assault. Cosby did not testify at the trial, for obvious reasons. However, prosecutors wanted to present his previous deposition in which he confessed to giving quaaludes women. The court agreed to allow it. Steele suffered a setback when the first trial ended in a hung jury. The jury found Cosby guilty of all three counts for aggravated indecent attack. We don't know the exact cause, but it is likely that Cosby admitted to previously drugging women.AdvertisementIn essence, the decision to overturn Cosby's conviction was unanimous.Cosby appealed and claimed that the introduction his incriminating deposition violated due process clauses of both the Pennsylvania Constitution and the U.S. Constitutions. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed this on Wednesday. The unconditional promise by a prosecutor of non-prosecution is Justice David Wecht's opinion. When the defendant relies on that guarantee to the detriment his constitutional right to not testify, the principle fundamental fairness that underpins our criminal justice system requires that the promise be enforceable.AdvertisementWecht explained that courts have to hold prosecutors to their word to enforce promises and ensure defendants make correct decisions. Castor's public declaration that he would not face prosecution was misleading, and Cosby's reliance led to the deprivation a fundamental constitutional rights when he was forced to give self-incriminating testimony. His prosecution and conviction were in violation of due process.AdvertisementSix out of seven justices voted in favor. They split on the solution. Two justices suggested that Cosby can be retried by prosecutors and that they could simply exonerate the incriminating testimony he gave in reliance upon Castors promise. A four-justice majority led by Wecht disagreed. Instead, the majority forbade Pennsylvania prosecutors to ever try Cosby again for this crime. The majority found that Cosby had been subject to coercive bait and switch. He must be given a remedy to restore him to the status quo prior to the due process violation.Although this is a strong remedy, it could lead to perverse incentives. One example: A district attorney might promise not to prosecute a suspect and then use that promise to get them to confess to the crime. The district attorney's successor could bring the charges. Even if the confession was not made at trial, prosecutors could still use it to find evidence that they would never otherwise have. A simple bait-and switch could be used by prosecutors to get suspects to give up their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination for a promise.AdvertisementAdvertisementOnly Thomas Saylor, one justice, voted against Wednesday's decision. Saylor claimed that Cosby didn't rely on Castors promise when Constands civil case was being tried. Also, he claimed that Cosby did not rely on Castors promise when he chose to testify in Constands civil case. However, Cosbys lawyers stated that they would not have allowed their client to testify if they thought prosecutors would charge him in future. This strongly suggests that Cosby did rely upon Castors promise. It is not clear if this reliance was reasonable. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that it was. This is a mistake. It protects defendants who are unable to discern a transparently indefensible prosecutorial promise.Saylor wrote, not surprisingly, that he was willing to give Cosby a fresh trial for different reasons. Five of Cosby's victims were brought in by the prosecution to testify at trial about their abuse. The court allowed their testimony because they shared many similarities. Saylor stated that this evidence was prejudicial to Cosby and that there were strong grounds for a fresh trial. The decision to reverse his conviction was unanimous.AdvertisementAdvertisementAdvertisementCosby was released shortly after Wednesday's decision. Cosby had already served three years of a sentence of three to ten years. It can be hard to imagine justice for a sexual predator who is free. His victims deserve better than this. The outrageous behavior of Castor, who recently defended Donald Trump in his second impeachment case, is the reason Pennsylvania Supreme Courts made this decision. Although the circumstances presented here are unusual, the majority said that they were not unique. However, it is not uncommon for corrupt prosecutors to bend the rules in order to avoid jail for high-profile suspects. We can only hope that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will enforce due process in cases involving common defendants as well as it did with Bill Cosby.
