Bill Cosby's sexual assault trial ended in a hung jury. Do you think there should be a retrial?
Asked by
chyna (
51598
)
June 25th, 2017
Explain your answer please.
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
49 Answers
Yes. Too many women with complaints about him might indicate there is at least some truth to their accusations.
I’m almost glad that I haven’t enough information to decide.
Yes, especially since it was down to two confused jurors. The prosecutor now has insight for jury selection.
Cosby’s defense was essentially “case not proven.” They could not do much rebuttal.
Yes. I think I read an article about one of the jurors thinking the women were flat out lying, and if there weren’t…well they went with Cosby willingly (therefore, whatever happened was their own fault). If that is the case, he obviously has an old-fashioned and twisted view of women and sexual assault. Also, if it had been 6 to 6 rather than 10 to 2, I might feel differently.
@augustlan I don’t know if it was the same juror, but one of them said something about how she was dressed when she went to see Bill Cosby. Really??? Shaming the victim?
Yeah, I think it’s the same one. Freaking neanderthal.
I wonder how often a case is retried after a hung jury? I bet not often.
Whether he gets convicted or not, it won’t change anyone’s opinion regarding whether he is guilty or not.
I believe he is guilty. I don’t know if I’m motivated enough to do the whole trial over again. I’m not the one who was raped by him though. What are the victims saying? He’s in his 70’s. It’s too bad no one came forward sooner. He did this to so many women, and no one said anything. I completely understand why victims said nothing, I don’t judge that in any way at all. I think I would be likely to say nothing in the same circumstance.
He does have the punishment of the world knowing all of these women have the same story. He has been disgraced by his own doing. He is not the average rapist, because he is famous. He is marked now, and can never shed it. He doesn’t even need to file as a sex offender, because the public knows.
He has endured the psychological stress of the accusations, the trial, probably makes less money than he would have (although recently I saw his Cosby show starting to rerun again) has had to pay lawyers, he has not gotten away scott free no matter what. Now he has the limbo of a hung jury.
Yes. And from everything I’ve read, probably a conviction.
Yes. And especially since reading that he plans to hold town hall meetings to educate men in how to avoid sexual assault charges. Wow, that makes me feel so sure he’s not guilty.~
I’d like to see him retried.
Although, that seems to be a slippery slope.
Essentially, that’s saying that we will try someone, until the public is satisfied with the verdict. That’s not much different than letting angry mobs lynch people. The intention of a jury trial, with representatives for both sides, is to make sure that it is as “fair” a process as possible.
I think, as mentioned above, there are simply too many accusers for him to be innocent. That being said, he wasn’t proven guilty to some of the jurors, who (hopefully) had a lot more information about the charges, and circumstances.
I would think that his lawyers will drag it out, as long as possible. Maybe hoping that Cosby will pass on before receiving a conviction, and the subsequent punishment.
On a side note. I used to love Bill Cosby. This news of his alleged sexual assaults was crushing, to me… If he is guilty, I hope he is tried again, and punished to the full extent of the law…
^^I don’t know if we can equate another trial, because of a hung jury, with trying someone until the public is satisfied. A lot of countries don’t even have double jeopardy like we do in the US. My answer was not a clear yes to retry like most answers here, but I do think because one or two people on a jury could be idiots, that the opportunity to retry is a good policy. It sometimes works the other way, the one or two hold outs are the ones who are correct.
@MrGrimm888 ”...we will try someone, until the public is satisfied with the verdict
But that isn’t what is happening. It isn’t “until the public is satisfied” since there was no verdict! It is an effort to conclude the case, not to leave it hanging and unresolved with no decision either way.
^Verdict, or not. The outcome, at least temporarily, is Cosby is not “guilty.” Indeed, he was not found “innocent” either, but he isn’t in prison…
@JLeslie , I’m not familiar enough with the litigation process, in this case, to give a better opinion. I guess I was saying, that Bill got away. He showed up in court. Followed the law, and wasn’t found guilty. As far as double jeopardy, I think it applies to those found innocent. I’m not sure of how it is affected by a hung jury. I would think it would also depend on the victim’s/victims desire to pursue the case further. At some point, there may also be a civil suit. In which I expect the victims will be seeking financial compensation for the crimes alleged.
^^Right, if you’re found “not guilty” you can’t be tried again on the same charge. A hung jury means nothing was found, and another trial can happen from fresh at the same court level. When someone is found guilty, they have the opportunity to appeal if they want to try for an appeal. It’s not supposed to be about what the “public” wants. However, I do realize there are politics involved, and there is unfairness within the system, but ideally it isn’t supposed to be that way. Criminal cases are brought by the state, not the victims, this is one way America tries to allow for a more even hand of justice. The emotional party is not directly seeking the punishment of the perpetrator, the government is.
No retrial. The prosecutor has gotten enough press off of Cosby. And the taxpayers have paid enough for the failed prosecution. No more.
How is it the people paid for it?? He has his own damn money.
Payment depends on who’s defending and who’s prosecuting. If the state is prosecuting, and Cosby wins, the state pays. If the state is prosecuting and Cosby loses, Cosby pays.
@Dutchess_III Court time costs money. We tax payers are paying the judges, clerks, jurors, and are paying for the building, utilities, janitor, security, and on and on.
I know that @JLeslie. Just like we pay cops and government officials. But that’s moot. If they weren’t trying Cosby they’d be trying some other Joe from the streets.
I’m talking about his defense.
I’ve been thinking about this question since the day it appeared here, and firmly believe that of course Cosby should be either convicted or acquitted. But from a practical standpoint, this case illustrates the difference in “justice” when the state is up against those with the financial heft to “outplay the people”. Were you or I in Cosby’s shoes without his money, the truckload of women and evidence would compel us to plea bargain our lives away whether guilty or not. Folks like Cosby or OJ turn the tables. At every stage in the process, they can deploy talent and resources superior to what is available to the state, and the state’s “soldiers” are fully aware of it. You and I would never see a trial. Cosby’s team, on the other hand can field experts on pinpointing morons in the jury pool. The state with its scant and hard pressed resources should probably give up.
@stanleybmanly Makes a valid point. It’s not always about true justice, but who has the most money and can afford the best attorneys, and can therefore afford to buy their own brand of “justice.”
@Dutchess_III No one cares that he has to pay lawyers. He’s rich and pretty much everyone on this Q believes he’s guilty.
The more court cases, the more courts get backed up, and the more judges and courthouses we need. It all adds up.
The justice system is very very expensive. Trials are expensive. The state has spent untold and probably shocking number of dollars on this. For what? And for the person who stated it should continue because more women might come forward…............that is not the purpose of a trial.
@Dutchess_III
@JLeslie I do believe he is guilty. I am sorry that the women did not come forward earlier when they were within the time limit. As it is, there is only one woman that is still within the time limit and I’m afraid some of the things she did made the jury question her motives. It did come out that after she was sexually assaulted by Mr. Cosby that she continued contacting him and in fact contacted him 52 times, once asking for tickets to his show. Also, she said that he tried to sexually touch her two other times, but yet she went to his house after those times.
I am not saying she wasn’t assaulted, because I believe she was. I think she makes for a bad witness to be speaking for the 40 or so other women that were assaulted before her.
@MollyMcGuire So let a rapist go with no consequence because it’s ”..very very expensive.”?
I guess that philosophy will make us all feel safe.
That’s how we roll in this country, @zenvelo
‘Fat Alberts’ with fame and / or lots of money get to enjoy different rules than do the rest of us.
Right, O.J. ??
@chyna I didn’t know those details, thanks. After hearing that my vote is don’t do the trial again, and probably they shouldn’t have in the first place. Not that I doubt he raped the girl, but the case sounds terribly weak in terms of convincing a jury.
@JLeslie Of course no one cares if has to pay for his defense lawyers. The question is Who is paying for the prosecution lawyers?
They don’t hire new judges and build new buildings due to over load! They just push the time frames out! Geez.
Well, I think enough glut on the system they might hire another judge. We have laws about speedy trials. Theg would have to get really behind and convince tax payers, but there must be some sort of accounting for how many cases and how many courthouses.
As the population has increased, so have the instances of court procedings, so of course they’ have more judges now than they did in, say, 1945 because that rate is not going to go down. It’s permanent.
But they aren’t going to hire temporary judges and temporary clerks for temporary gluts.
The question is about Bill Cosby, specifically, and WHO IS PAYING FOR HIS PROSECUTION TEAM? And if it gets retried, who pays for the retrial?
The answer is, The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The tax payers of Pennsylvania are paying for it.
It has nothing to do with government judges and clerks, @JLeslie. Those costs are there no matter what.
Do you understand?
@Dutchess_III Are you saying that justice should be based on how much prosecution money is being spent? Justice shouldn’t be about money in that aspect.
IMO, the courts should supply attorneys for both sides. Equal $$ for all!
Qué lástima. Que no es cómo la cosa funciona
I’m not talking about temporary. Let’s drop it. It doesn’t matter for this one case, except to say the tax payer doesn’t get reimbursed in any way this time, because Cosby wasn’t found guilty. And, you said the commonwealth pays. That is the government.
@JLeslie Cosby wasn’t found not guilty either, hence the mistrial. A mistrial may mean that the jury felt that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute to a verdict of either type. It doesn’t mean the defendant was found innocent of any wrong doing by the jury.
@kritiper I wasn’t referring to that. I’m just taking note of the fact that some are arguing against a retrial due to the cost to the tax payers. I don’t know if that’s a good excuse or not.
I was trying to point out to @JLeslie that the cost to the tax payers was above and beyond what we already pay for the government employees who oversee the system.
@JLeslie “And, you said the commonwealth pays. That is the government.” Who pays the government?
I don’t know about PA, @Dutchess_III, but in many states the prosecutors are salaried employers of the state, costing no more for a high profile trial than for a minor one. The corners are cut in other trials, different deals might be made on other cases. If you know that PA is different, do tell. With links.
I don’t know about PA, either. In Kansas they’re salaried employees too. They work for the DA’s office. They’re going to get paid whether they try a case or not. So how would retrying the case cost the state / tax payers more money?
@kritiper If I wrote that he was found not guilty, you’re correct that I’m incorrect. He wasn’t found to be anything. Hung jury means no determination.
People aren’t “innocent” in the court system, they are either guilty or not guilty. There’s a difference. It’s a subtle difference, but there is a difference.
@zenvelo I said enough. It’s enough money spent. Another prosecution will likely be another hung jury. It is likely enough that one could argue malicious prosecution. The DA was building a career and didn’t get quite the traction he wanted out of this. The whole thing smelled bad to me. I never believe accusations about celebs when the accusation sat and simmered for years and years.
Well we don’t know what coercion came into play to keep them quiet.
Apart from this trial, the length of the line of women accusing him of similar attempts continues to lengthen toward the horizon. The current number now exceeds 3 dozen with no end in sight.
Answer this question 
