That’s the title of an op-ed I just wrote for the New York Daily News in light of the Cosby ruling. From the conclusion to the piece:
The case against Ghislaine Maxwell is extremely weak — based on 25-year-old, uncorroborated allegations made only after Epstein died. A jury should reject those flimsy and stale charges. But in the event of a conviction, she should get relief on appeal for the same reason Cosby did — prosecutors should have to live up to the deals they make. As that court explained: “A contrary result would be patently untenable. It would violate long-cherished principles of fundamental fairness. It would be antithetical to, and corrosive of, the integrity and functionality of the criminal justice system that we strive to maintain.”
The Cosby case reaffirms that a prosecutor is bound to act with integrity and the public must be able to rely on his word. What a concept.
"This is in black and white: 'the United States . . . will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein.'”
ReplyDeleteHow is "the United States" defined in the agreement? In my experience, it's typically defined as "the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida," because the SDFL does not have the authority to bind any other U.S. Attorney's Office (or Main Justice). Was Epstein's case different? Was the agreement run up the chain of command at DOJ and approval given to bind the entire DOJ?
Just read the agreement. Shockingly (and sloppily), the limiting definition mentioned above is NOT included. Wow.
ReplyDeleteThe cosby case is distingushable. The dismissal was based on principles of contract law--the DA publicly stated he wasnt bringing charges with the express purpose of taking away Cosby's right to plead the fifth at any civil deposition. The promise was made, the DA intended cosby to rely on the promise, and he did rely on the promise and did not invoke the 5th. Thus the obvious result: its unfair to make a promise to get someone to waive their constitutional right against self incrimination, then when they rely on the promise, you then use what they said to ...incriminate them.
ReplyDeleteBy contrast, maxwell wasnt in direct negotiations with the the USAO when epstein cut his deal (as far as i know). She would at best be a 3rd party beneficiary to any contract between the USAO and Epstein. As far as i know, there is no record of her being told "hey you can rely on our contract with Epstein, and that contract means you cant assert the fifth at any depo."
What am i missing? Did Maxwell's lawyers tell her at the time of her depos that Epsteins deal meant she couldnt invoke the 5th? I don't know the answer, but find that possibility far fetched.
I remember during the Cosby trial how I was floored the civil depo was used in the criminal trial after such an agreement. IMHO the story is not so much the over turning conviction but the original DA who seemed not to want to pursue criminal charges and gave a wink and nod to the civil case. I try to imagine what would have happened if criminal charges were filed. However we know civil cases that jump before criminal charges can hurt and impact a criminal case.
ReplyDeleteThe original D.A. who declined to prosecute Cosby and entered into that shady deal, later became the crazy Trump impeachment lawyer. Remember the guy that both sides, Dems and Trumpists both said was an idiot for the things he was stating at the impeachment hearing.
ReplyDeleteGosh, you cant make this stuff up. THIS guy is why Cosby walked the first time and then released years later.
Castor is a horrible attorney always was... his recent antics confirm it....
DeleteCongrats to Judge Moore on an fabulous run as Chief Judge! Well done!
ReplyDelete11:31 -- Fabulous? You must be joking. Giving defendants more time in custody than any other judge, locking up defendants who violate SR with marijuana, refusing to terminate probation, giving defense lawyers no continuances in which to prepare for trial, refusing to grant even the most sympathetic compassionate release motion, and generally showing utter disdain for anyone accused of a crime? Inhumane and an embarrassment.
ReplyDeleteI was referring to his tenure as Chief Judge not his work on individual cases.Try reading next time.
ReplyDeleteNice try, but Maxwell did not make a deal with the SDNY.
ReplyDeleteExactly. She wasn't the beneficiary of cronyism like Epstein.
ReplyDeleteJust how many people have been sitting at the FDC essentially denied their speedy trial protections because the defense bar lacks the will to rock the boat to spring their clients that are denied bail?
ReplyDeleteThat is the legacy of Chief Judge Moore.