Famed comedian Bill Cosby goes back on trial this week for charges that he drugged and sexually assaulted a woman several years ago. Since the charges were filed, dozens of other woman have come forward to allege that Cosby had similar conduct with them. The case went to trial 10 months ago, and ended with a hung jury. Even though Cosby’s attorneys managed to avoid a conviction at that trial, Cosby now has a new legal team lead by Tom Mesereau, who has handled such high-profile clients as Michael Jackson.
The trial will be quite different this time, as the new attorneys seem more aggressive, and the evidence has substantially changed. For the first trial, the court allowed one other accuser to testify about her experience with Cosby. This time around, the court has permitted up to five other accusers to testify. Last time around, the attorneys were able to cast enough doubt on the “similar fact evidence” witness that the jurors later said they completely disregarded her. It will be very difficult for them to disregard five, or to demonstrate that they are financially motivated. One of the possible witnesses is model Janice Dickinson, who has sued Cosby for defamation for attacking her claims. It’s unclear why the judge decided that five other people can testify in this trial when they couldn’t in the last one, but it appears to make the situation far more grave for Cosby.
Generally, a retrial favors the prosecution… and probably more so when the judge permits a substantial amount of evidence that was previously excluded. We will find out the final outcome when the trial concludes, probably not for about a month.
Michael Dunn mug shot
The city of Jacksonville released financial numbers indicating the Dunn trial cost taxpayers $99,158.26. These numbers don’t include a lot of important costs, such as the expenses incurred by the State Attorney to prosecute the case. The majority of these costs were for law enforcement overtime, and the costs associated with jury sequestration. Unfortunately for city coffers, the hung jury on the most serious counts mean that a similar retrial is likely. This case cost substantially less to try than the Zimmerman case, and is being used as a model for upcoming cases, such as the Marissa Alexander case. That case will also be a second trial.
Wait, why doesn’t double jeopardy apply to these cases? Because they were not acquitted the first time around. Had they been found not guilty, they could not be tried again. In Dunn’s case, the hung jury on the murder charge essentially
makes the trial on that count a nullity, and it must be retried anew. The convictions on the other charges will stand. As Marissa Alexander was convicted the first time around, she could have let that verdict stand. But since she got the benefit of a new trial being ordered on appeal, she faces the prospect of a new trial. Normally, the sentence cannot be increased on a retrial, as it could be seen as vindictive. However, legal changes may force the judge to order any minimum mandatory sentences under 10/20/Life to be served consecutively. That legal change may force the court’s hand, which would suggest the increased sentence was not due to vindictiveness. Defendant’s are not eligible for gain-time or other early release on a 10/20/Life sentence, which means Ms. Alexander would serve every day of 60 years, less what credit she already had.
Posted in 10-20-Life, 5th Amendment - Miranda Rights, Criminal Law, Florida, Florida Cases, Stand Your Ground
Tagged appeal, double jeopardy, jacksonville, michael dunn. marissa alexander, murder, retrial, trial
The Italian Supreme Court, which recently overturned Ms. Knox’s acquittal, has ruled today that she must once again stand trial for the murder of her former roommate. Her boyfriend at the time, Raffaelle Sollecito will also be tried again. The confessed killer, Rudy Guede, is still serving his sentence for the killings after being convicted separately. Prosecutors still believe Ms. Knox and her former boyfriend were involved in the killings, despite the fact that her statement is wholly inconsistent with Mr. Guede’s killing of Ms. Kercher.
CBS recently aired the new documentary, “Central Park Five”, about five young men/boys were interrogated under intimidating circumstances, and ultimately convicted for a horrible crime in spite of the fact the stories they gave were inconsistent and frequently incorrect on details. The tainted confessions doomed their case, in spite of the fact that there was a serial rapist who’s MO matched the crime. The way the statements were extracted and the way the inconsistencies of Ms. Knox’s case mimic the incorrect statements of the Central Park Five made me think of the Knox case as I was watching it. Definitely check it out for an examination of how false confessions can happen, and how they can over power the surrounding evidence of a case.
Here’s our previous coverage of Knox’s case, the ‘Foxy Knoxy’ case as it was dubbed by the tabloids: https://crimcourts.wordpress.com/category/criminal-law/amanda-knox/