and didn't reach a verdict one way or the other. Him forcing the jurors to keep deliberating at least twice would have been a ready made argument for the losing side's appeal.

But every prosecutor says they will retry after a mistrial and often a couple of months later it is quietly dismissed. This is a huge amount of resources being used and the prosecutors will have to convince their boss they will get a guilty verdict the second time after they couldn't the first. What is going to be different?

Most likely there will be.

Like you, I'm offering no supporting evidence in my prophecy as well.

If I were a criminal defendant, I would tell my lawyer, "Screw you and that plea bargain. I want a jury!"

To cause a mistrial.

Was it 11-1 for conviction? 6-6? 3-9?


rocktivity

The prosecution will refile for a new trial.

and if the holdout juror thought the charges weren't sustainable I'm glad he or she stood his/her ground.

10-2 for acquittal, we remained deadlock for the next 12 hrs. The 2 dissenting votes were 2 old ladies that based their position on the fact defendant had to be guilty or he wouldn't have charged. The judge would not accept a deadlock and we were sequestered at a hotel 30 miles away at midnight and had to be up at 6am to meet for breakfast and shuttled back to the courthouse. The only evidence the prosecution had was a "confession" that was signed after 24 hours straight of being questioned without an attorney, the sole witness of prosecution was the younger brother of the actualler killer who pled guilty. The younger brother copped an immunity deal to testify against the defendant who actually turned in the 2 brothers for killing. The younger brother emitted pure evil. The guilty brother refused to testify and we jurors saw all this an attempt by the prosecution at what they thought was an easy conviction....after all they had an eye witness and a confession. The defendant took the stand and withstood 8 hrs of the most brutal cross examination which also included having the bloody victims tshirt tossed at him. He never wavered.

The second day of deliberations, the 2 dissenting votes finally went along...why?....they were exhausted....similar to what the defendant went thru with his 24hrs of interrogation.

Cosby and his lawyer depends on his celebrity status to keep him free. Next trial it will not..

took over 200 in the jury pool to seat a jury. I was the last juror select and believe me I tried everything to get out of it but judge would have none of it. No way he would allow a hung jury either and madr that clear but when you have one or 2 jurors refusing to discuss evidence pertinent to the case, not much can be done, you don't decide on "feelings". The 10 of us saw it for what it was, a clear case of railroading. I think the judge purposely let us deliberate uno nearly 9 pm before we took a dinner break and we had to get our family get some clothes for the overnight sequester. Taking us 30 miles to hotel was involved in his plot too as we did not get to bed till midnight and lucky to get 6 hours sleep.

Cosby is a POS, and next time the trial should fare better.

I can say that if I had a reasonable doubt about guilt of the specific crimes charged, I would vote not guilty.

Anytime you have a celebrity, they tend to get better treatment. I actually remember fucking Cosby doing a comedy routine a year or 2 ago about him and his hundreds of drugged women... anytime you can make people laugh, or seem like you are the victim not your victims, you get the sympathy.... who does that sound like? FUCKUMP - COSBY....cut from the same mold.

It may just be a way to accept what's considered an unjust verdict. The assumption is still that the plaintiff is correct and the defendant guilty under the law, and a reasonable jury, composed of right-thinking people like yourself, would agree with you. A lot of people heard a woman or group of women say he raped them; that was it, he was guilty, what need is there for a trial?

It may be that some jurors looked at the evidence, the law, and said that under the law he's not guilty. Maybe they didn't believe her narrative of what happened--it's imprecise, and could easily have been put together after the fact. Perhaps they thought there was enough doubt that "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" wasn't applicable and so they had to find him not guilty.

We can't tell. We didn't watch all the testimony. It may be a celebrity effect; it might be that under the law it's reasonable to say he's guilty.


It always pays to remember what memory is like, how flexible it is. The two examples I like to keep in mind are matters of public record. One is the school scandal from the '90s, where a lot of teachers and administrators lost their careers and reputations because the kids accused them of sexual abuse. Except that after the trials, after their reputations and careers were ruined, close examination of the evidence showed that the defense lawyers had messed up. Looking at the layout of the building, looking at schedules and who was on the premises at specific times, the kids' narratives couldn't have been correct. Carefully comparing the "counseling" with the kids' testimony, and correlating it with how the kids' narratives changed over time, it became obvious the kids had the idea planted and then built memories around the ideas. Once the ideas were planted, listening to others' stories gave kids more confidence that theirs were correct and provided additional details they could incorporate into their stories. The defense attorney had just assumed that memories were memories. You might forget something, but you certainly couldn't confidently remember something that didn't happen and was unlike anything that ever happened to you. (Yeah. Like alien abduction.)

In like fashion, there was a bishop or cardinal that was briefly caught up in the Catholic "pedophilia" scandal. He'd been based in Los Angeles for a number of years and was popular and well liked, but was later transferred to someplace ... maybe in the mid-West. Anyway, a woman in LA said he'd assaulted her sexually several times in his office well over a decade before. She described the office, the events, and fortunately for the truth gave specific dates. The assumption was jumped to that he'd been transferred because higher-ups knew. The poor woman had very concrete, very specific information, and the accusations made national front page news. Until a few days later when the story quietly vanished, because for some of the dates she'd been so certain about the man was at a conference in another state and his picture was on the front page of the local newspaper at the time. That led support to his claims that for other dates she said when his planner said he was out of town that he really was out of town, but, you know, that didn't actually make the accusation and the news story go away. What made it vanish overnight was when it came out that she'd been mentally ill and received treatment. A few people said that made it more important to believe her, we can't "blame the victim," but the story was dead--the alleged perpetrator may not get any respect, but she was just a bad witness. Then there was all the evidence saying the presumed bad guy couldn't have done it.... Otherwise her memories were precise, specific, and wholly fictional. In her case, she heard about all the other assault cases and built her memories only after hearing others'.

That's why it can be hard to seat a jury in well-publicized cases who haven't already made up their mind.

They heard from the defendant, and the judge allowed only one other victim to testify. I'm not certain if the jurors "didn't know" about how many women accused him, or may have been instructed to disregard that in their deliberation.

The prosecution can have a 2 hour taped confession of the defendant admitting up and down they are guilty and describing exactly how they killed the victim, but if that tape was obtained illegally somehow and declared inadmissible by the judge...the prosecution cannot present it to the jury and they won't hear it. That's why the defense will find any grounds they can to throw out evidence or testimony that convicts their client.

His legal troubles seem to continue and it appears he will face trial again for this particular case. I have no idea how I would have voted in this case because I didn't hear all of the evidence presented and I know things that the jurors supposedly did not, such as how many other women have made similar claims.

Cosby's troubles are far from over. This is just one more in a long line and even it is not finished since the prosecutor says he will try again. You can bet they will go over what they did this time and try to not make the same mistakes that led to a mistrial.

I find myself oddly feeling very sad about this whole debacle. I started listening to Cosby as a teenager in the 1960s and bought several of his albums. Wonderfulness and 200 mph. My family enjoyed them over and over. Later we were faithful fans of the Cosby Show. After hearing of what he did and ADMITTED to doing to the women, I am not sure I can ever watch or listen to them again. What a disillusionment. 😔

Half the jury probably grew up on them, and couldn't bring themselves to convict.

enough compelling evidence to get the jury to convict.

How a man can think with his penis when his upper brain is so much smarter.

Sexual assault is always about power, not sex.

Sex is about power. Sometimes, sex is about dominance. I am absolutely convinced that one of the reasons that some men are so uncomfortable with gay sexuality is that it means, in their minds, that one of the men is submissive, and they just can't wrap their heads around that.'

I would add that some men would never, ever allow themselves to be on the bottom.

I personally think that the number of men who sexually dominate their women is huge, if not the majority, and that the leap from sexual dominance to sexual assault is a small one.

The general public has heard more evidence than the jury did. 50+ women came forward and said that Cosby drugged and raped them over the decades. I think only one of them was allowed to testify in this trial and the defense got the rest excluded.

Based on the evidence that was presented in this trial, I might have ruled that there was reasonable doubt, but I've seen dozens of these women interviewed and it seems extremely unlikely that they're all lying for a payday or that they've experienced some kind of mass hallucination.

What's kind of incredible is that if Hannibel Burress, a comedian, hadn't done a routine at a club in Philly about Cosby's previous civil suit about this, which someone filmed on their phone and went viral, this wouldn't have gotten press and the additional women wouldn't have come forward (14 of them already had over 10 years ago), the public wouldn't have known/cared about this and Cosby would be starring in a tv show now with his popularity unscathed.

thrown out on appeal as he was never convicted in any of those other cases in a court of law.

that Cosby had treated them the same way. I'd think that would be relevant as a pattern of behavior. I would certainly view Cosby differently if this was a single case of he said/she said vs. 50 women all with very similar stories spanning decades.

him to defend himself from both the current charges and the claims the other women might have made and the court would have thrown the verdict out fast on appeal and maybe even barred any further charges from being filed against Cosby in this specific case.
Right now though there is still the option he can be tried again though given his age and the way the current trial just went I am not going to hold out much hope for that.

The women he assaulted will never be free.

Typical US Justice imo.

The defendant was a fat cat banker that had been arrested on the highway. He had a good attorney and we guessed that some wvidence must have been ruled as inadmissible.

The assistant DA handled the prosecution and did it poorly in my opinion. The arresting and booking officers both testified and we felt like she should have asked the officers some soecfic questions that would have given us (the jury) more details.

I wont write a novel about it but will say that i think we all felt that he was guilty yet the proceedings and evidence that was allowed in thr trial did not give us the ability to easily render a guilty verdict.

W had one real right wing women who was quite adamant about it and another very sweet women who was her mothers caregiver and didn't want to "ruin the defendents life" by voting guilty. As the day wore on I tried my best to cover the details of the trial and spur discussion. After lunch we were still hung so i asked if we could ask tbe judge for a more complete explanation of what the burdon of proof for operating under the influence in MA is and then it was back to the deliberation room. As the day neared the end that one lone women was the only not guilty vote. it was clear to all of us that despite our efforts to get her to change her mind, she was never going to find him guilty despite feeling that he was. Then the we had to convince her polar opposite to go with not guilty.
So in the end we returned a verdict of not guilty.. The process really opened my eyes as to how our judicial system works.