Tag Archives: #andreaConstand

Cosby Did Not Have Immunity!

Why the Supreme Court of PA overturned Cosby’s guilty verdict baffles the mind!

Justice Wecht wrote the court’s opinion. Although their decision claims District Attorney Bruce Castor gave Cosby immunity from criminal prosecution, he totally lacked authority to do so. His authority only extended to whether or not he would prosecute the accused. A determination of “immunity,” however, according to Pennsylvania’s statutes, must be made by a judge. No such determination was granted.

Any Pennsylvania judge, including the four rape apologists who favored the opinion to vacate, Justices Todd, Donahue, Wecht and Mundy, could and should have known better.

Cosby’s defense attorney, equally at fault in guiding his client, advised Cosby that because he was not being prosecuted, he did not have the right to plead the fifth amendment during the civil trial. During his civil depositions, Cosby admitted he engaged in sexual contact with Constand – after administering drugs that rendered her incompetent.

Fortunately, three of the Supreme Court Justices expressed dissenting opinions, Justices Dougherty, Baer and Saylor.

Excerpts from Justice Doughterty

“I begin by addressing an underlying issue that the majority says little about but which I believe looms large: Castor’s apparent belief that, as an elected district attorney, he could forever preclude his successors from prosecuting Cosby.”

He goes on to say: “And it would effectively assign pardon power to District Attorneys, something this Court has already rejected as unconstitutional.”

Justice Dougherty, also disputed the remedy of vacating the judgment, as stated in Justice Wecht’s opinion which says: “He must be discharged, and any future prosecution on these particular charges must be barred.”

Rather, Justice Dougherty makes a solid case for suppressing Castor’s illegally obtained evidence and supports doing so by stating: “So drastic a step” merely increase[s] to an intolerable degree interference with the public interest in having the guilty brought to book.” Blue, 384 U.S. at 255.6

Justice Saylor also dissented:

“I respectfully disagree with the majority’s determination that the press release issued by former District Attorney Bruce Castor contained an unconditional promise that the Commonwealth would not prosecute Appellant in perpetuity. See Majority Opinion, slip op. at 50-52, 60-64. Rather, I read the operative language — “District Attorney Castor
declines to authorize the filing of criminal charges in connection with this matter” — as a conventional public announcement of a present exercise of prosecutorial discretion by the temporary occupant of the elected office of district attorney that would in no way be binding upon his own future decision-making processes, let alone those of his successor.”

In conclusion…….

The determination of the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania can only be overturned by the Supreme Court of the United States. Four Commonwealth of Pennsylvania justices have granted unconstitutional pardon power to the District Attorney. If there were ever a sexual assault case that warranted review by the highest court in the land, this is it!


Victim-Blaming Consent Bills Will not Conquer Sexual Assault!

Three legislative bills to deal with sexual assault have just been introduced in three individual states this month. CAN actively engaged with the legislators for each one.

In fact, to emphasize our point, we conducted Zoom calls and appeared in hearings with legislators, and we included several celebrities who understood the failure of our laws because they’re Weinstein and Cosby survivors. Our heartfelt thanks goes to Rose McGowan, Andrea Constand, Jessica Mann, Mimi Haley, Dawn Dunning and Tarale Wulff.

The new bills are: House Bill 1176 in Indiana, House Bill 0213 in Utah, and House Bill No. 5 in Alaska.

While the attention to sexual assault is welcome, to effect meaningful change, legislators can’t simply regurgitate flawed language that supports outdated myths!

Unfortunately, none of the three bills that were introduced contain specific, game-changing, legislative language to conquer sexual assault. Instead, while they, indeed, criminalize a specific behavior we advocated for fixing, rape by impersonation, they perpetuate the victim-blaming mentality that’s engrained in our justice system.

Your help could fix this!

When writing legislation, legislators often rely on laws that already exist in other jurisdictions and settle for copy-catting ineffective statutes. The theory behind this method is that they can defend their bill by saying…. “Well, so-and-so does it this way.”

My mother (RIP) used to say: “If so-and-so jumps off a bridge, does that mean you should do it too?”

Example:

The Basics of Marching | Military.com

The bill in Alaska relies on the language of federal military law to establish its consent provision. Their House Bill #5 submitted by Representative Geran Tarr on January 8, 2021, states:

Sec. 4(9) – “Consent” means a freely given, reversible agreement specific to the conduct at issue by a competent person.”

Alaska is the state with the highest rape statistics. But even their horrific numbers are outdistanced by the military in which 50% of females are sexually harassed or assaulted, with virtually no recourse. Is it really the right statute to emulate?

The military’s language falls short because it leaves out one of the most important characteristics of consent: it must be “knowledgeable and informed.” The public often makes the mistake of thinking of consent as any old form of agreement, but that’s incorrect. There are three basic types of agreement that frequently occur in sexual contact:

  • Assent- Agreement on the face of it,
  • Acquiescence- Agreement under duress,
  • Consent- Freely given, knowledgeable and informed agreement #FGKIA.

While “consent” can only take place between two competent people, consent does not exist when one of those people induces the other’s agreement through force, fear or fraud.

The military’s consent language fails to take into account that the offender’s artifice in inducing agreement determines which type of agreement is actually taking place. Inducing consent is the only form of agreement that makes sexual contact legal. Problem is, no state defines consent, and the federal law neglects to include that one must have competent information in order for their agreement to qualify as consent.

Ex-gymnastics doctor Larry Nassar pleads guilty to 3 more criminal sex  charges

Larry Nassar is in jail for the rest of his life because he induced agreement through the artifice of deception. While his victims assented, agreed on the face of it, they in no way consented, freely gave knowledgeable and informed agreement. While some of his victims had not obtained the age of competence, others had done so. Regardless of their competence level, however, they were all victims of rape by fraud in the factum because the information he gave them was not competent information.

Reversible agreement?

Actually, “revocable” is more to the point. But it goes without saying that because, to qualify as consent, your agreement must be “freely given,” the minute you change your mind, you are no longer consenting.

If; however, legislators feel more comfortable including the concept that consent can be withdrawn in order to emphasize the point, revoke means “to put an end to.” Reverse means “to make the opposite of what it was.”

Revoking clearly means stop, in the moment. Reversing begs the question of what actually existed in the first place and whether you can reverse your decision after the fact. Clearly, freely given knowledgeable and informed agreement can be revoked, but not reversed.

Your discovery that you were forced, coerced or tricked into thinking you were consenting is not a reversal of consent. It is a recognition that the type of agreement that actually took place was not consent to begin with because the malicious conduct of the offender prompted your agreement. The offender disrupted or overpowered your thought process, but only for so long. Our laws need to be crystal clear!

Another glaring mistake in Alaska’s bill…

Sec. 3. AS 11.41.445 is amended by adding a new subsection to read: (1) an expression of lack of consent through words or conduct means there is no consent;

Surely, you are not consenting when your words and conduct convey such. But it’s consent-blind to think that the victim’s ability to discern whether they are being sexually assaulted – in the moment – is always accurate. Saying, or acting like a “no” cannot be the only dividing line between consenting and not consenting, but that’s often how this provision is misused in a courtroom.

Larry Nassar’s victims certainly did not discern, in the moment, that they were being sexually assaulted. Sexual predators go to great lengths to undermine knowledgeable and informed agreement by all forms of deception, duplicity and artifice, that a reasonable person would have difficulty detecting.

Also, victims are often too scared, startled, traumatized, or injured to assert a refusal through words or conduct. The reliance on the victim’s words or conduct takes the responsibility for securing #FGKIA, and places responsibility for their own sexual assault squarely on the shoulders of the victim.

“Words and conduct” are a conveyance. But they can only convey consent when and if consent is actually taking place. Whether the victims knows, or does not know that the offender is undermining the elements needed for consent, the offender knows full well what they are doing. A person’s conduct is criminal because of what they do, not what their victim does. In fact, in courtrooms, victims are considered witnesses to a breech of the state’s code by the accused.

We know #FGKIA is the actual definition for consent because several currently in-force, and strictly adhered-to codes and laws tell us so….

  • Nuremburg Code, which establishes consent for medical treatment and experiments,
  • Model Penal Code which was created by the American Law Institute in 1962, and has been adopted into law in several states to protect against theft,
  • General Data Protection Regulation that protects your cyber-security on the internet and is international law.

All of these codes and provisions are clear that consent is Freely Given, Knowledgeable and Informed Agreement, #FGKIA.

My TEDx Talk “When YES Means NO – The Truth about Consent” clearly explains the distinction between all three types of agreement and why CONSENT, not assent or acquiescence, must take place in sexual contact.

My book, “Your Consent – The Key to Conquering Sexual Assault,” provides greater depth on the issues.

Nulla Poena Sin Lege

This hazardous relic from the Roman era is what makes defining consent so vital in the struggle to conquer sexual assault. It’s a legal doctrine that means, “What’s not prohibited by law is permissible.” Defining consent by specific instances that are “not consent.” fails to cover all the ways consent does not take place. The only way to cover all the ways that consent does not take place and protect against sexual assault is to properly define consent and establish that sexual conduct without consent is a sexual assault.

Claiming that the way to determine if the victim consented or not is to judge whether they made an utterance or tried to get away…. as courts interpret “words and conduct”….. fails to consider all the varied reactions a victim could have when they’re being sexually assaulted – including freezing. It’s the remaining, ugly vestige of patriarchal, rape mentality that’s been passed down in our laws century after century. Our present law makers should make it stop, not perpetuate this victim-blaming language.

The victim’s reaction should not be on trial. The actions of the offender should be on trial. “Words and conduct” puts the victim’s actions on trial. By correctly defining consent, the offender’s efforts to maliciously suppress their victim’s resistance would be on trial.

In real life…..

Donna Rotunno, Harvey Weinstein’s lawyer, exploited the failure of the “words and actions” provision in New York’s laws, claiming that the words and actions of his victims acquitted her client. Fortunately, because five victims stepped up to establish Weinstein’s predatory behavior, he was convicted. But in cases where one victim, alone, has been harmed, the likelihood of conviction is rare. In fact the likelihood of an arrest is infinitesimal.

We’ve all known the horrible statistics, we just didn’t know why. The “why” is that our laws, that we rely on for justice, blame the victim instead.

Alaska’s bill raises fraud as an artifice but narrowly limits the application.

The 14th amendment of the US Constitution grants equal protection under the law. The public needs protection against all forms of sexual assault, not just some forms of sexual assault. Fraud is frequently used by sexual predators as their weapon of choice.

Medieval Weapons stock footage. Video of gore, archaic - 49518644

Fraud is not difficult to understand. Juries consistently determine guilt and innocence in theft by fraud cases. Fraud is not different in sexual assault by fraud cases. Here are its 5 steps:

  1. You deceive
  2. You know you’re deceiving
  3. You expect your victim to believe your deception
  4. They believe your deception
  5. They suffer harm as a result of believing your deception

Fraud can be used to create all sorts of crimes, including sexual assault. Clearly, when we understand that consent must be “knowledgeable and informed,” we can understand why defrauding a person for sex is a crime. Keep in mind that in order to prosecute a fraud case, the victim would have to have significant proof that a fraud, indeed, took place,

In addition. the prosecutor would have to be convinced that a “reasonable person” would have been deceived under the same circumstance.

The job of the jury is to act as “reasonable people,” in fraud cases and other crimes. In fact, in the Bill Cosby case, when the jury asked for the definition for “consent,” Judge Steven O’Neill responded; “You’re ‘reasonable people’; use your commonsense,” because no definition for consent exists in Pennsylvania’s laws.

HB 5’s narrow wording on sexual assault by fraud, confining the crime to “someone pretending to be another person,” is not sufficient to protect Alaskan’s from all forms of sexual assault by fraud.

Signing of the Declaration of Independence | National Geographic Society

Many of our legislators, principally male, think it’s trivial, even good sport, to defile a woman by defrauding her. If you look back at the immorality of our forefathers in owning slaves and conducting extramarital affairs, it’s hard to fathom how our country became the standard bearer for human rights. While we’ve abolished slavery, we still have not abolished sexual assault.

Even today- our legislators are reticent to take a clear position to prevent defilement by fraud because they either fail to see the life-changing harm in the conduct, or fear that their base fails to see it, and they will lose their support.

Our penal codes separate “sexual assault” provisions from “assault” provisions because of the devastating impacts of defilement on a person. That defilement can take place from all violations of sexual autonomy, not only violent ones.

As civilization has evolved, we’ve recognized that sexual assault can happen to men as well as women, but the stereo-typical concept that sexual assault is a “women’s problem” perpetuates dismissiveness. While our laws are clear that consent is freely given, knowledgeable and informed agreement when protecting a man’s property, we deny that the same definition applies in sexual contact.

Corrected, accurate wording, that is consistent with HB #5’s objective, is:

Consent is freely given, revocable, knowledgeable and informed agreement, by a competent person.

Although being “revocable ” is understood by the fact that consent must be freely given, it does not hurt to include the information for clarity.

And if, in addition, Alaska’s Penal Code stated that “Nonconsensual sex is sexual assault,” like the ItsOnUs Pledge tells us, folks in Alaska would be able to secure justice for all types of sexual assault. But instead, the bill states specific types of sexual assault, leaving abundant legal loopholes for predators to slip through.

Defining consent correctly would put all sexual predators on notice, guide their behavior, and hold them accountable.

Indiana- the new Hoosier bill

I am truly ecstatic to see the new sexual assault by fraud bill, HB 1176, gain traction in Indiana’s legislature! Back in late 2017, I began communicating with Indiana State Representative Sally Siegrist to help enact legislation for Indiana. In fact, my TEDx Talk focused on the case that served as Indiana’s “Ah-Ha Moment” for creating the bill. The information was picked up by Buzzfeed, Nightline, Inside Edition, the NY Times, and additional media outlets.

A female student at Purdue University was defrauded for sex by an imposter; a male student named Donald Grant Ward. Ward climbed in bed with her – after seeing that she was asleep and her boyfriend had left the room. She had fallen asleep in her boyfriend’s bed, with his arms embracing her. Thinking Ward, who stroked her breast, was her boyfriend, she engaged in sex. When she learned the truth, she and her boyfriend called the police.

Even though Ward readily admitted to tricking her, and confessed his intent to do so to the police, the arrest led to an acquittal because rape by deception is not a crime in Indiana. And, like every other state, Indiana has no definition for consent.

I had hoped that with Rep. Siegrist’s help, we could close the legal loophole in Indiana’s law on rape by fraud, and provide Hoosiers with greater protection against sexual assault with a clear definition of consent.

South Carolina State Representative Mandy Powers-Norell saw the Buzzfeed article that featured both myself and Rep. Siegrist. She was determined to make a difference and submitted HB 3829 last year, which died in committee.

New cast of characters

On January 7th, this year, Rep. Siegrist’s colleague, Rep. Sharon Negele, along with Rep. Donna Schaibley, and Rep. Sue Errington, introduced HB 1176 to get the job done in Indiana.

Over the summer, the Indiana legislators agreed to conduct an Interim Study on Consent. CAN submitted a video which launched the discussion, featuring myself, Tarale Wulff and Mimi Haley, both Weinstein survivors who had testified against him. Our interest was to get the over-arcing protection of “consent” codified into Indiana’s laws. The Zoom hearing contained heart-wrenching stories about the invalidation and injustice that results from Indiana’s failure to define consent.

One of those stories was presented by Liz White, a mother who’d been artificially inseminated by a doctor who lied about the sperm he was implanting. Instead of the donor he claimed, Dr. Donald Cline used his own sperm. Her research uncovered that he had fathered 90 children by defrauding his patients. He has approximately 180 grandchildren. As a result, his community is at high risk for unknowingly incestuous relationships among his offspring. Ms. White asked that the act of switching sperm by a fertility doctor be included as a sexual assault by fraud.

Sometimes, when you reach for the sun, you get to the moon.

Instead of a consent bill, a narrowly confined sexual assault by fraud bill, specifically making the sexual assault at Purdue University a crime, is finally pending.

During a recent legislative “reading” of the bill by the Codes and Courts Committee, Courtney Curtis, with IPAC, the organization representing Indiana’s Prosecutors, said that sexual assault cases in Indiana result in “disparate treatment from courtroom to courtroom.” Yet despite her statement which underscores how badly needed defining consent actually is in Indiana, she failed to support defining consent in Indiana’s laws.

Curtis went on the claim that fraud is confusing. She failed to acknowledge the simplicity with which judges explain fraud in theft cases exactly as I described above. The committee voted in favor of the narrow bill as written, without including an amendment Ms. White requested. Subsequently, the bill passed in the House of Representatives by a 90 to 4 vote.

HB 1176 also contains the blame-the-victim language created by the concept that a victim’s “words and conduct” convey consent. In fact, they only convey consent when consent, freely given, knowledgeable and informed agreement takes place, not when the offender uses force, fear or fraud to undermine the victim’s self determination.

I truly hope HB 1176 passes, because closing even one legal loophole is far better than doing nothing! But I urge all readers to use your voice to appeal to Indiana’s legislators for clarity on what sexual assault actually is! They need to stop the victim-blaming nonsense they are embedding in their statutes, and recognize their responsibility to “equal protection under the law:” If one act of fraud to induce sexual contact is a sexual assault, then all acts of fraud to induce sexual contact is a sexual assault. And influencing a victim’s decision making process through force, fear or fraud, should never be seen as consent in a court of law. I urge you to use your voice by writing to the legislators who are sponsoring HB 1176. You’ll see their contact information at the end of this post.

Without the definition for consent clearly codified into Indiana’s laws, there is no end to the loopholes that sexual predators can dive into in order to assault their victims.

Last but not least, Utah!

On June 5th, 2020, CAN joined forces with the WE-Will Organization to reach out to Utah State Representative Angela Romero about defining consent in Utah’s laws. On January 8th, 2021, she, along with Senator Todd Weiler introduced HB 0213, entitled “Consent Language Amendments.”

In Section 1. 76-5-406 (2)(g), the first suggested amendment expands the state’s acknowledgement of when consent does not take place from impersonation of “a spouse” to “someone else.”

Just like the Indiana bill, Utah’s bill is a big, but narrow win for sexual assault by fraud. But it’s a legislative loophole plugger, not a consent definition. It fails to deal with any other deception or method for undermining a victim’s right to #FGKIA,

If sexual assault is a crime, and we know it is, as a result of the 14th amendment, the public deserves protection from all sexual assaults, not simply a few selected ones. Only by recognizing that consent is freely given, knowledgeable and informed agreement, will the public be properly served by Utah’s penal code.

Making it simple

If someone threatens you in order to get you to give them your car, they’re committing grand larceny. If they threaten you to induce sexual contact, “You agreed, didn’t you?”

Bernie Madoff | Biography, Ponzi Scheme, & Facts | Britannica

In New York, Bernie Madoff will spend the rest of his life in jail because he defrauded victims of their assets by false pretenses. He did so in a manner that a reasonable person would not suspect.

But if you show your victim a divorce decree, with a raised seal and judge’s signature, claiming that you’re divorced when you’re not, in order to sexually penetrate them, they have absolutely no recourse when they discover the decree is a forgery. This, by the way is an actual case in which the Honorable James J. Panchik, a divorce judge in Armstrong County Pennsylvania, whose signature was forged on the document, was notified and failed to do anything about it.

One more important thing…….

Do sexual predators actually read penal code? Probably not! At least, not ’til they’ve been caught! In fact I dare say, most of the public has never read it either.

Laws that drone on with legal-ease negatives about specific nonconsensual acts do not give the public the guidance and accountability that defining consent clearly, in simple terms, will create.

Can we make it simpler than “Consent is freely given, knowledgeable and informed agreement?” That’s what it is! A six year old child can learn and understand it.

How to stop a child from stealing - 9Honey
  • They don’t have consent if they lie that they finished their homework in order to have a cookie.
  • They don’t have consent if the kid next to them on the school bus dropped their lunch money. They are responsible to return it.
  • They don’t have consent if they bully a younger child to give up the swing when they want it.

If you’d like help explaining consent to your kids, watch our cartoon, “Your Consent for Kids.” It’s totally G-rated!

Consent is not rocket-science folks! It’s really simple to understand! And we need our legislators to protect us from sexual assault by getting it right!

How can you help?

Contact the bill’s authors and co-authors by phone or email. If by phone, you can simply leave a message. If by email, please provide us with a copy by cc or bcc to info@consentawareness.net.

Alaska:

  • Rep. Geran Tarr- Rep.Geran.Tarr@akleg.gov – 907-465-3424
  • Legislative Director Michelle Hale- MichelleHale907@gmail.com

Indiana:

  • Rep. Sharon Negele- Write or call her Legislative Asst: Lewis Ostermeyer at Lewis.Ostermeyer@iga.in.gov – 317-232-9816
  • Rep. Donna Schaibley- Donna.Schaibley@iga.in.gov – 800-382-9841
  • Rep. Sue Errington- Sue.Errington@iga.in.gov

Utah:

  • Rep. Angela Romero- AngelaRomero@le.utah.gov – 801-722-4972
  • Sen. Todd Weiler- tweiler@le.utah.gov – 801-599-9823

Here’s a simple message for you to cut/paste and fill-in the blanks:

Dear _________,

Thank you for your efforts to create Bill _______.

While I support all legislative changes to combat sexual assault, I see that this bill fails to accurately define consent, and this failure perpetuates rape and sexual assault.

Please include this wording in your bill:

“Non-consented-to sexual contact is a sexual assault, and a violation of the victim’s human rights. Only “freely given, knowledgeable and informed agreement” is consent in the state of _____.

Sincerely Yours,

Your name, address, and phone number

One more thing…..

CAN simply CAN’t do everything that’s needed without your help! No matter how large or small your contribution is, it’s welcome and will be put to good use to fight for CONSENT laws across the US and around the world!

Thank you in advance for your generosity!

Please use this PayPal Link.

Bill Cosby- What’s Next?

Watching the latest Cosby show, his appeal hearing in front of Pennsylvania’s highest court, you’d think that rape was a legal-ease, hair splitting triviality, rather than a defiling, premeditated, vicious cruelty.

On December first, the attorneys for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and for Bill Cosby’s defense, presented their positions to Pennsylvania’s seven Supreme Court Justices; Thomas G. Saylor, Debra Todd, Max Baer, Kevin M. Dougherty, Christine Donohue, David N. Wecht, and Sallie Updyke Mundy, to decide Cosby’s fate. He is appealing his Aggravated Indecent Assault conviction which was previously upheld by a lower appeals court

First Basis for Appeal-

Cosby’s defense attorney, Jennifer Bonjean, argued that Cosby had been granted immunity from prosecution in exchange for not exercising his right to plead “the fifth” in the civil case brought by Andrea Constand, a victim he lured to his home under the guise of “mentorship,” in order to drug and sexually assault her. In his civil case deposition, Cosby testified that he slipped Constand Benadryl, that he had several prescriptions for Quaaludes that he intended for sex targets, and was unaware if Constand had consented.

No evidence or document exists to support that such an immunity agreement actually existed. In fact, the only written document regarding immunity was an article published back then in the National Enquirer.

Contrary to Cosby’s assertion that District Attorney Bruce Castor gave him full immunity from prosecution, the actual 2005 article quotes Castor as having said that the commonwealth “retains the right to reopen the case if the need arises.” The Commonwealth’s attorney, Robert Fallin, reminded the seven Supreme Court justices that such language was customary in all immunity agreements.

During the civil action, Cosby was questioned, and did not plead the fifth, regarding additional bad acts he conducted in other jurisdictions, where Castor had absolutely no control. The fact that Cosby only spoke under the belief that he would not be prosecuted, when in fact he spoke candidly about events in locations without a promise of immunity, additionally belies the defense’s argument. Time will tell whether the present justices will acknowledge the weight of these facts. Their decision could take several weeks.

Second Basis for Appeal-

Bonjean claimed the prosecution’s introduction of five witnesses to establish Cosby’s consistent nonconsensual sexual conduct unfairly tainted his character in the eyes of the jury. The judges questioned whether their testimony elicited a conviction based on a character assault, rather than the commission of a crime…. thereby rendering the trial “unfair.”

The Judges React-

What followed was word salad from the justices, splitting hairs over how similar the additional cases were and whether they contained probative value rather than a smear campaign. Justice Christine Donohue said. “I just don’t see it.” and Justice Max Baer remarked, “I tend to agree that the evidence was extremely prejudicial.”

Assistant District Attorney Adrienne Jappe, for the prosecution, argued that because “consent” was in question, prior claims that assaults without consent had taken place were needed to prove Cosby’s pattern of sequestering young women and stripping them of their defenses by administering drugs.

Giving Cosby a pass because he committed multiple bad acts only serves to enlighten society that conducting serial crimes can cause dismissal, while an individual crime would not. The additional irony is how rarely offenders who commit individual sexual assaults are brought to justice.

Pennsylvania’s law says…..

Under 225 Pa. Code § 404, (b) (2) prior bad-act witnesses can be used to prove motive, opportunity, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.

The justices questioned the validity of arguing the “absence of mistake,” and seemed to be siding with the defense by asking “Where do we draw the line? How many witnesses would be too much?”

Ms. Jappe aptly responded with case histories in which testimony by multiple “prior bad-act” witnesses was admitted. The justices seemed to overlook that the additional witnesses proved Cosby’s planning, preparation, and knowledge of the crime.

Neither the trial judge, Steven O’Neill, nor the prosecutor can change the fact that the accused is a repetitive monster. Should we dismiss findings because the person is simply too vile to prosecute? That prospect is simply gag-worthy!

How bad is bad?

The prosecutor had located nineteen witnesses who had agreed to testify. Judge O’Neill told them to pick five of the eight he’d selected. The Supreme Court justices should not be micro-managing Judge O’Neill’s decision on how to balance the probative value of testimony vs. the potential for unfair prejudice, particularly because Pennsylvania’s laws make no distinction regarding the amount of such witnesses that are allowable, therefore leaving that choice to the trial judge’s discretion.

Bonjean claimed that the added testimony took up 50% of the court’s time. Jappe countered that their testimony took two days out of a ten day trial.

Convicting Cosby would have been a slam dunk if CONSENT were defined by law in PA!

Since, in the civil case, Cosby had admitted, under oath, he did not know if Constand had consented, on that basis alone, his sexual conduct would have been charged as unlawful. Instead, his case is mired in legalistic wrangling that thwarts commonsense and justice.

The future?

Bill Cosby deserves incarceration. If these justices fail to dispense justice where it’s sorely needed, they send a blatant message to society that Pennsylvania’s laws will only prosecute predators who are caught red-handed as they bludgeon their victims within an inch of their lives.

The risk of inactive ingredients in everyday drugs - Harvard Health

Trying cases when victims are drugged, drunk, or otherwise unconscious are particularly difficult to prosecute because the victim is unable to explain what happened to them while their brains failed to process pertinent data. Providing additional testimony to establish a pattern of behavior is an important prosecution practice to take monsters like Cosby off the street. Failing to recognize the importance of additional witnesses in these cases would be a grotesque miscarriage of justice.

In summary….

The important facts each justice should recognize are the following:

  1. There is no limit to how many bad-act witnesses a judge may allow to help prove motive, opportunity, preparation, planning, and knowledge.
  2. It is inconceivable that a communication as important as a promise of immunity was not codified in writing, filed with the court, and cannot be produced by the defendant or the defendant’s lawyers.
  3. A claim that a District Attorney would relinquish the commonwealth’s right to pursue the case, if additional evidence warranted their doing so, flies in the face of the norm in Pennsylvania, and is contrary to the only documentation, the National Enquirer article, that was written at the time- based on the press release issued by Cantor.

What can you do to help?

Unfortunately, judicial rules of ethics prohibit justices from case discussions with the public. Any correspondence from you would be discarded. While we can’t reach out to the justices who hold Cosby, and therefore his victims’ fates in their hands, we can make every effort to insure that Pennsylvania’s, or any state’s, victim-blaming, inappropriate laws are never repeated.

CAN has worked with legislators in Pennsylvania to codify consent in its penal code. This specific, glaring omission in Pennsylvania’s laws gives rise to the public’s gross misconceptions of what actually constitutes a sexual assault, and thrusts the possibility of conviction into the quicksand of legal-ease and archaic thought.

Write to the Pennsylvania legislators to support our efforts to #CodifyConsent in Pennsylvania’s laws so that we will never see legal wrangling again over the conviction of a serial rapist, or denial of justice to sexual assault victims.

Send your note!

Please send a note of appreciation to:

  1. Senator Katie Muth at senatormuth@pasenate.com
  2. Representative Wendi Thomas at wthomas@pahousegop.com.

Be sure to thank them for their support in creating the sorely needed transformational change that accurately defining consent as “Freely Given, Knowledgeable and Informed Agreement, #FGKIA,” will create in Pennsylvania’s laws and echo across the US and around the world!

To learn more about Cosby’s appeal, watch the video of the appeals hearing.

Do You Have 30 Minutes to Cure Sexual Assault?

#CodifyConsent! Help cure #SexualAssault by spreading the word!

In honor of #SAAM…. It’s FREE! Thirty minutes is all it takes to read Your Consent – The Key to Conquering Sexual Assault. It is changing the laws on Sexual Assault and Rape! Can you take 30 minutes to be part of this transformational cure?

In order to lock up offenders, we need new laws that #CodifyConsent! Without the definition for consent in our laws, we’re unable to guide behavior and hold sexual predators accountable. Can you help us make this change? Continue reading Do You Have 30 Minutes to Cure Sexual Assault?

3 Major Takeaways in Jail Time for Cosby

William Henry Cosby Jr., Convicted Serial Sexual Predator

There are soooo many lessons to be learned by Bill Cosby’s trial and conviction! Today, as he was led to prison in handcuffs, the wry smugness that had punctuated his features had finally vanished. The downward cast of his eyes in his mugshot mimicked the steep decline of his fall from grace.

Here’s my take on the three biggest lessons we can learn from his conviction…..

Lesson 1.

Andrea Constand’s Impact Statement underscores that violence is far from the only way victims of sexual predators can be harmed. Instead of using violent force to overwhelm her, Cosby used drugs. Constand’s brains were muddled and it was impossible for her to freely give knowledgeable and informed agreement. #FGKIA

#AndreaConstand
Andrea Constand

Just like Constand was denied consent by Bill Cosby, any victim who is denied consent is sexually assaulted, not seduced.

It’s high time for our law makers to get it right and protect society!

Lesson 2.

Our present system of testimony in sexual assault trials is appalling. Constand admirably described her ordeal at her deposition for her civil case:

I had to relive every moment of the sexual assault in horrifying detail in front of Mr. Cosby and his lawyers. I felt traumatized all over again and was often in tears. I had to watch Cosby make jokes and attempt to degrade and diminish me, while his lawyers belittled and sneered at me. It deepened my sense of shame and helplessness, and at the end of each day, I left emotionally drained and exhausted.

There is no reason why the offender and the victim must actually sit in the same room. With our present state of technology, this method of questioning is outdated and unnecessary. By its very nature, it’s intimidating and one of the reasons sexual assault victims refrain from speaking up. It forces the victim to relive their trauma in front of the very person who traumatized them.

Murder victims are not alive to testify in person about their murder, yet justice proceeds. Victims whose soul has been murdered should not have to be in the same room as the person who murdered their soul. It’s cruel, and thanks to technology, it’s unnecessary.

Lesson 3.

One person’s testimony meant nothing to law enforcement. Constand’s case only succeeded in generating action once scores of victims came forward. Her story is the same for countless victims that report the horrific crimes they suffered. Instead of securing the support, help, and justice they sorely need, they’re met with disdain, disbelief and dismissal from the authorities. Had Cosby not been a public figure, it’s unlikely he would have been arrested on sexual assault charges.

In another less high-profile case, Mario Anioine, in Kansas City Missouri, harmed 30+ women. A Federal Prosecutor called him a “serial rapist.” Yet the SVU Prosecutor failed to file charges for rape against him. Fortunately, he was ultimately found guilty of federal cyber crimes.

Each victim of sexual assault deserves to secure the unequivocal support of law enforcement. Their attitude toward non-violent rape or rape by acquaintances is appalling. NYPD Commander Peter Rose of the 94th Precinct disclosed the horrid underbelly of police mentality toward acquaintance rapes when he stated that violent rapes by strangers was a real crime and ignored 10 out of 13 acquaintance rape cases in his precinct.

Enough Is Enough!

How long must we tolerate our lawmakers’ uncanny blindness toward the sexual sanctity of a person’s body and the life-altering, deeply painful, and shameful pall it casts over the victim for the rest of their entire life? 

We CAN make a difference! We CAN get the laws changed across the US! Please watch this TEDx Talk! Share it with everyone you know! Call your legislator and say #FGKIA, Sign it into law Today! Don’t vote for them if they won’t give you a new law that protects yourself, your children and your children’s children!

Does Cosby’s Big Plan Prove He’s a Narcissist?

Poor, poor Bill!

.After all those years of fooling society into thinking he was the perfect father image, allegedly the perfect cover for conducting sexual assault, his cover’s been blown. And like a true Narcissist, he can’t leave well enough alone. He has to be the grand leader…. hence, he’s grandstanding in a new venue: Town Halls. 

Continue reading Does Cosby’s Big Plan Prove He’s a Narcissist?