Cosby’s Mis­trial Trav­esty

New York Post - - POST OPINION -

There was no jus­ti­fi­ca­tion for ex­clud­ing the tes­ti­mony rel­e­vant to show Bill Cosby might have en­gaged in a com­mon scheme i.e., us­ing the same tac­tic on other women (“‘I just needed one,’ ” June 18).

The statute of lim­i­ta­tions does not ap­ply in ev­ery sit­u­a­tion. The de­cid­ing fac­tor is whether the sto­ries of the al­leged vic­tims are re­mote in time. In the Cosby case, the al­leged vic­tims’ tes­ti­monies were not re­mote, but rel­e­vant and ap­pro­pri­ate.

Also, Cosby tes­ti­fied to the grand jury un­der a grant of im­mu­nity, but the law is clear that for im­mu­nity, a truth­ful tes­ti­mony is re­quired.

Un­der that cri­te­rion, the pros­e­cu­tor could have put the al­leged vic­tims’ story of Cosby’s al­leged wrong­do­ing into ev­i­dence with­out re­gard to the statute of lim­i­ta­tions. The statute does not bar the tes­ti­mony of other al­leged vic­tims. Jay Gold­berg Man­hat­tan

We can no longer al­low the use of the statute of lim­i­ta­tions to let pos­si­ble abusers get away with crimes while wast­ing tax­payer fund­ing in our courts.

If guilt can be proven, our ju­di­cial sys­tem and judges need to rep­re­sent and seek the truth re­gard­less of time. These loop­holes now have far more mean­ing in court­rooms than truth. Robert Stein Staten Is­land

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.