To Free a Predator: The Flawed Rationale for Overturning Bill Cosby’s Conviction To Free a Predator:

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania’s rationale for overturning Bill Cosby’s conviction on three counts of aggravated indecent assault has drawn little public criticism. In fact, legal scholars and journalists appear to largely agree with the court’s opinion.1 Nevertheless, the court’s rationale suffers from multiple substantial flaws.

In holding that the prosecution violated Cosby’s right to due process, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ignored Cosby’s burden of proof, unreasonably applied well-established promissory estoppel principles to the facts, and failed to give proper deference to the trial court’s application of those same promissory estoppel principles.

CLICK FOR MORE