Commonwealth v Cosby

choi

Pennsylvania Supreme Court, June 30, 3021. Case No 39 MAP 2020.
https://www.pacourts.us/assets/o ... 0139246918.pdf?cb=1

Quote:

My comment:
(a) Like Massachusetts and two other states, Pennsylvania is officially a commonwealth, not a state. See commonwealth (US state)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_(U.S._state)

Puerto Rico is also officially a commonwealth, too.
(b) Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Su ... mposition_and_rules
("It also claims to be the oldest appellate court in the United States, a claim that is disputed by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court [highest state court of Massachusetts]. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania began in 1684 * * * The Pennsylvania Supreme Court consists of seven justices, each elected to ten year terms. Supreme Court judicial candidates may run on party tickets. The justice with the longest continuous service on the court automatically becomes Chief Justice. Justices must step down from the Supreme Court when they reach the age of 75 (at the end of the calendar year), but they may continue to serve part-time as "senior justices" on panels of the Commonwealth's lower appellate courts until they reach 78, the age of mandatory retirement")

(c) The link connects to the decision of the majority, which is 79 pages long. Here is my guide to the opinion.
(i) Pages 1-19 are fact of the case. Page 19 says, "Because our analysis in this case focuses upon the trial court's interpretation of those testimonies, we reproduce that court's synopsis here:"

The reproduction then runs pages 19-26. There is no need to read the reproduction, except that the alleged victim Andrea Constand's civil attorneys contradicted then District attorney's declaration that the attorney had consented to the Declaration. Pages 24-25. The trial court (Superior Court actually) did not ask Cosby's criminal attorney (who was involved in the declaration), because that attorney, Walter M Phillips had died on Sept 23, 2015. Majority's opinion 22-23.
(ii) The abbreviation you may encounter in reading the opinion are
TCO  trial court opinion;
CDO   concurring and dissenting opinion (of the that court).
(iii) Page 51's first paragraph states that former District Attorney Bruce Castor's email was inherently inconsistent, and its second paragraph states that superior court reached the wrong conclusion that the dA made no promise not to prosecute Cosby forever, in part because there had been no immunity. Page 27 and n 14 (n = footnote). Take notice that n 14 quotes state statute, where attorney general or district attorney of Pennsylvania offers immunity and seeks court's approval, "that judge shall issue such an order."  "[S]hall means "must."   
(A) witness immunity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness_immunity
("In the United States, the prosecution may grant immunity in one of two forms. Transactional immunity * * * [or] Use * * * immunity")
(B) Why is the immunity called transactional? See
State ex rel Nothum v Walsh, 380 S.W.3d 557, 560 (Mo 2012)
https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=55768
(a Missouri statute "section 491.205, contained in the general provisions concerning witness testimony, states that witnesses may be immunized from prosecution for 'any act, transaction, matter or thing' when they are 'called to testify or provide other information at any proceeding ancillary to or before a circuit or associate circuit court or grand jury' ")

S.W. = Southwestern Report (published by West Publishing). 2d = second edition. 380 is volume number and 557 is the starting page of that opinion.
(iv) Starting at page 52, majority’s opinion explains why Crosby’s right to due process was violated.
(v) Page 53 of the opinion cited Santobello v New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971)
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=52202525793754131
, which was also about a promise made by a predecessor prosecutor that a successor prosecutor did not follow.

Read only fact of the case, until "This record represents another example of an unfortunate lapse in orderly prosecutorial procedures.

Page 53 contains n 21, that alluded to due process clause ("nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law") of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Promise is just a promise, which is a contract. Because the person who made the promise is a government official, breach of a contract may rise to constitutional level (a civilian who breaches a contract can never be constitutional lapse.)
(vi) Page 58 rules "Unless patently abused, this vast [prosecutorial] discretion is exercised generally beyond the reach of judicial interference."

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts characterizes this discretion as embodiment of separation of power: here executive branch (prosecutor) and court.


```````````````
Compare
萧雨, 金哲 and 周士为, 胡平：“起义光荣”的国军父亲在镇反运动中被处决. VOA Chinese, June 19, 2021 (in the series: 中共百年·梦醒时分).
https://www.voachinese.com/a/CCP ... 210613/5926608.html