US

Ghislaine Maxwell’s lawyer says she should be freed from jail now too after Bill Cosby’s release

Ghislaine Maxwell‘s attorney claims she should be let out of jail now because Bill Cosby has been freed, claiming prosecutors promised not to charge her when they gave Jeffrey Epstein a sweetheart deal in 2010.  

Cosby was freed on Wednesday because of a promise a prosecutor made in 2005 that he would not be charged. He went on to incriminate himself in a civil case and another prosecutor, years later, used those remarks to charge him. 

Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that it was unconstitutional and that had he not thought he was beyond reproach, he wouldn’t have made the incriminating remarks.  

Writing for The New York Daily News on Thursday, Maxwell’s appellate lawyer David Oscar Markus, said prosecutors in New York should never have gone after her because years earlier, a different prosecutor in Florida promised Epstein in a deal that he wouldn’t charge his ‘co-conspirators.’  

Maxwell wasn’t named as one of the co-conspirators and it is in a different state that she is facing sex trafficking charges now. 

But Markus argues it’s another example of people not being able to trust prosecutors at their word. 

‘If a prosecutor promises something, he should be bound by his word — just like the rest of us,’ he wrote. 

Ghislaine Maxwell's attorney claims she should be let out of jail now because Bill Cosby has been freed, claiming she was promised she wouldn't be prosecuted in a round-about-way when Jeffrey Epstein got his sweetheart deal in 2010

 Ghislaine Maxwell’s attorney claims she should be let out of jail now because Bill Cosby has been freed, claiming she was promised she wouldn’t be prosecuted in a round-about-way when Jeffrey Epstein got his sweetheart deal in 2010

Writing for The New York Daily News on Thursday, Maxwell's appellate lawyer David Oscar Markus, said prosecutors in New York should never have gone after her because years earlier, a different prosecutor in Florida promised Epstein in a deal that he wouldn't charge his 'co-conspirators.' Markus is shown in April at court

Writing for The New York Daily News on Thursday, Maxwell’s appellate lawyer David Oscar Markus, said prosecutors in New York should never have gone after her because years earlier, a different prosecutor in Florida promised Epstein in a deal that he wouldn’t charge his ‘co-conspirators.’ Markus is shown in April at court 

In 2010, Epstein pleaded guilty to soliciting sex from an underage prostitute in Palm Beach. 

As part of his deal, he served one year in ‘prison’ – he was allowed to go to his office every day – and prosecutors promised not to charge his three unnamed ‘co-conspirators’. 

It was a deal given to him Alex Acosta, who went on to become Trump’s Labor Secretary. 

Writing on Thursday, Markus said: ‘This opinion and reasoning applies directly to Ghislaine Maxwell’s case.

‘In her case, Jeffrey Epstein pleaded guilty and struck a bargain with the prosecutors in Miami: In exchange for pleading guilty in state court, the U.S. attorney’s office agreed that it would not prosecute any of his alleged co-conspirators,’ Markus wrote. 

Epstein was given a deal in 2010 that his co-conspirators wouldn't be charged if he served a year

Epstein was given a deal in 2010 that his co-conspirators wouldn’t be charged if he served a year 

‘But she should not have to fight her case at trial and her case should be thrown out, just like Cosby’s has been, because prosecutors promised Epstein when he pleaded guilty that they would not prosecute her. 

‘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,’ he wrote. 

Maxwell is due to go on trial later this summer. 

She has pleaded not guilty and has always, in civil court too, protested her innocence. 

Cosby was freed by Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court which ruled it was unfair that in 2005, a prosecutor promised him he wouldn’t be charged for sexually assaulting Andrea Constand. 

As a result of that promise, Cosby, the court ruled, went on to incriminate himself in a civil deposition. 

The incriminating remarks he made were then used by a different prosecutor to charge him in 2015. 

The court ruled that Cosby had his constitutional rights violated by the false promise. 

Others like Harvey Weinstein say his release could help them for different reasons. 

Harvey Weinstein's reps praised the Cosby result and now may use it in their own appeal. Like Cosby, Weinstein was jailed after multiple women testified against him who had nothing to do with the specific charges but who claimed he'd assaulted them on other occasions

Harvey Weinstein’s reps praised the Cosby result and now may use it in their own appeal. Like Cosby, Weinstein was jailed after multiple women testified against him who had nothing to do with the specific charges but who claimed he’d assaulted them on other occasions 

One part of Cosby’s appeal was that the prosecution at his trial used five witnesses to testify about his character, even though they weren’t involved in the actual charges at hand. 

The same tactic was used by prosecutors at Weinstein’s trial in 2020. He protested it, saying they shouldn’t have been allowed to testify. 

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court did not rule on the issue in its decision, instead focusing only on the promise that was made to Cosby. 

But Cosby’s team – and Weinstein’s – believe the fact he got out sets a precedent for others. 

‘It’s a major issue. What we have always said is how can you bring women in from 30 years ago who had nothing to do with the trial to say something happened

‘We were not allowed to examine them on the witness stand. This sets a precedent for so many cases. Even Harvey Weinstein now are using our same strategy.

‘They say look the people who testified had nothing to do with the accusers.

‘Mr. Cosby’s case sets a precedent for the country. It’s going to be talked about. 

‘It changes case law,’ Andrew Wyatt, Cosby’s rep, said on Thursday outside his house.  

THE ‘DEAL’ THAT SET COSBY FREE

Former Montgomery County DA Bruce Castor

Former Montgomery County DA Bruce Castor

The Supreme Court did not rule on whether or not the testimony of five women who were ‘bad act’ witnesses contributed to Cosby’s fate, or whether or not their testimony was fair. Instead, they looked only at the comment made by Montgomery County Prosecutor Bruce Castor, and found that it was the reason Cosby should go free. 

In 2005, Cosby had been reported to Castor’s office by the police in Pennsylvania after Andrea Constand reported the alleged assault. 

It became public knowledge. 

After pursuing an investigation, Castor’s office released a press release saying he would not be charging Cosby because of a lack of evidence. 

That press release is the ‘deal’ Cosby thinks he made. There was no formal definition in it about how long it would last or if future prosecutors were bound by it. 

This is part of the release:

‘Montgomery County District Attorney Bruce L. Castor, Jr. has announced that a joint investigation… into allegations against actor and comic Bill Cosby is concluded. 

This is the 2005 release by Castor's office which Cosby thought was an 'immunity deal'

This is the 2005 release by Castor’s office which Cosby thought was an ‘immunity deal’

‘The detectives could find no instance in Mr. Cosby’s past where anyone complained to law enforcement of conduct, which would constitute a criminal offense. 

‘After reviewing the above and consulting with County and Cheltenham detectives, the District Attorney finds insufficient, credible, and admissible evidence exists upon which any charge against Mr. Cosby could be sustained beyond a reasonable doubt.

‘In making this finding, the District Attorney has analyzed the facts in relation to the elements of any applicable offenses, including whether Mr. Cosby possessed the requisite criminal intent.  

‘After this analysis, the District Attorney concludes that a conviction under the circumstances of this case would be unattainable. 

‘As such, District Attorney Castor declines to authorize the filing of criminal charges in connection with this matter. Because a civil action with a much lower standard for proof is possible, the District Attorney renders no opinion concerning the credibility of any party involved so as to not contribute to the publicity and taint prospective jurors. 

‘The District Attorney does not intend to expound publicly on the details of his decision for fear that his opinions and analysis might be given undue weight by jurors in any contemplated civil action. District Attorney Castor cautions all parties to this matter that he will reconsider this decision should the need arise. 

‘Much exists in this investigation that could be used (by others) to portray persons on both sides of the issue in a less than flattering light. The District Attorney encourages the parties to resolve their dispute from this point forward with a minimum of rhetoric. 

‘After reviewing the above and consulting with County and Cheltenham detectives, the District Attorney finds insufficient, credible, and admissible evidence exists upon which any charge against Mr. Cosby could be sustained beyond a reasonable doubt.’ 

In emails years later, Castor said that he made the deal with Cosby to get Constand a settlement. 

In one, which is included in the Supreme Court decision, he says: ‘The attached is the written determination that we would not prosecute Cosby. That was what the lawyers for [Constand] wanted and I agreed. 

‘The reason I agreed and the plaintiff’s lawyers wanted it in writing is so that Cosby could not take the 5th Amendment to avoid being deposed or testifying. A sound strategy to employ.’  

The Supreme Court ruled that the prosecutor – far from trying to let Cosby off the hook – performed a legal ‘bait and switch’ and lulled him into making incriminating statements. 

‘The moment that Cosby was charged criminally, he was harmed: all that he had forfeited earlier, and the consequences of that forfeiture in the civil case, were for naught. This was, as the CDO itself characterizes it, an unconstitutional ‘coercive bait-and-switch’. 


Source link

Related Articles

Back to top button