Florida Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

OVERVIEW

Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the past several months, you now know about the extremely controversial plea deal that Jeffrey Epstein was afforded. He received 13 months in county jail, had to register as a sex offender, and was ordered to pay restitution to his numerous victims. Many are outraged at the result, finding it way too lenient. Whether you think that was a fair outcome likely hinges on whether you believe what former Labor Secretary/Former U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta said during his recent press conference, held just days before he resigned from Trump’s cabinet. If you believe him, then you subscribe to the notion that it was the best deal prosecutors could get under challenging circumstances and that both he, the career prosecutors who also worked on the case, and law enforcement agents, all acted in good faith in order to obtain for the victims the best possible resolution they could negotiate. If you believe Acosta, then you factor into the equation the things that he mentioned, like how the Government’s case wasn’t a slam dunk and that the climate for these types of cases was very different both in and out of court in 2008 than it is now. If you don’t believe Acosta, then you think something very different. Many have even gone as far as to suggest that Acosta intentionally tanked his case for personal benefit.

Whether Acosta was being honest and/or whether prosecutors did the right thing back then is not the focus of this article. There’s already plenty of those articles out there. You’re free to feel how you’d like. I have no agenda. What I want to focus on is what will most likely happen as a result of this uproar. One thing is for sure, there will be significant changes in the criminal arena as a result of the Epstein case controversy.

As you’ve likely heard by now, all charges against former Empire Star Jussie Smollett were dropped by Cook County prosecutors in a Chicago criminal courtroom yesterday. You’ve probably heard the facts, however, just in case, here’s an article from yesterday to get you caught up to speed: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/26/arts/television/jussie-smollett-charges-dropped.html

I want to discuss what we learned today and why I am feeling pissed, angered, livid, upset and/or frustrated. During an interview with First Assistant Cook County State’s Attorney Joseph Magats, who lead the investigation, he said “I do not believe he (Smollett) is innocent.” In explaining why they dropped charges, Magats said, “Based on all the facts and circumstances, based on his life and criminal background. I mean, we defer and do alternative prosecutions. In the last two years, we’ve done 5,700 other felony cases.” What he didn’t say was that they had any problems with proving their case. So why the heck did Smollett get the deal of the century?

To Mr. Magats, I passionately state in response, “THIS ISN’T YOUR TYPICAL CASE, MR. MAGATS!!!!!! There is nothing typical or average or ordinary about this case Mr. Magats!!!! MR. MAGATS, THE CHARGES IN THIS CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DROPPED!!!!!!! YOU SCREWED UP, SIR!!!”

INTRODUCTION

You’re driving in your car somewhere in Broward County, Florida and Officer (Un)Friendly stops you. He alleges that you violated some traffic infraction. Let’s say he claims you were speeding. Then, he alleges he has probable cause to believe you committed a criminal offense, let’s say drunk driving (DUI). He then points to your cell phone that’s charging in your vehicle. He says, “I’d like to look through that.” For some reason, you say, “Sure, you seem nice and I have nothing to hide.” He then takes hold of your phone and attempts to look through it. At that moment, I happen to drive up to the scene. After you explain to me what occurred up to that point, I passionately provide you with some legal advice. Based on that, you say to the officer, I want my phone back. He fires back with, “I’m not giving your phone back until you give me the passcode to your phone so I can see what is in there.” Do you legally have to give him your passcode under these circumstances?

ANALYSIS

WHAT HAPPENED?

By now, you’ve heard the “King of Pudding” was convicted of three felony rape counts. His first trial ended in a hung jury. That means that jurors couldn’t agree to a unanimous verdict. So what changed from the first to the second trial that led to his conviction? It’s a simple formula: 5 is better than 2…as in 5 victims testifying for the prosecution is better than only two victims. For reasons the judge failed to articulate, he allowed five of Cosby’s prior rape victims to testify in the second trial while previously only allowing two. That certainly aided the prosecutions’ efforts of tipping the scales of evidence to “proof beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt.”

As persuasive as the five testifying victims were, what jurors found equally, if not more compelling, were Cosby’s own words. No, he didn’t take the witness stand. That was a good strategic decision as he would have been obliterated on cross examination. His words were those he spoke to civil lawyers in a prior civil suit. In that deposition, which was read to jurors, Cosby admitted under oath a number of disturbing things, which jurors found to be proof of guilt. The most compelling admission was his use of Quaaludes which he liked to provide to young women in order to induce them to have sex with him. He gave them out to women like non rapists give out drinks to their dates. He also admitted that he went to great lengths to conceal these affairs from his wife, who he calls, “Mrs. Cosby.”