#NNPA BlackPress

Bill Cosby Denied Appeal, But Other Avenues to Freedom Remain

NNPA NEWSWIRE — “In my view, the case law which the Superior Court followed in this case does not adequately recognize the overwhelming, prejudicial effect of this type of evidence and the way in which it makes it incredibly difficult to obtain a fair trial on the actual allegations in question,” says Philadelphia-based criminal appeals attorney, Zak Goldstein.

Published

4 years ago

December 13, 2019

Oakland Post

Bill Cosby, who in 2018 was convicted and sentenced to prison on aggravated indecent assault charges, has lost his bid for an appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court.

By Zak Goldstein, Special to NNPA Newswire
@ZakTGoldstein

Bill Cosby, who in 2018 was convicted and sentenced to prison on aggravated indecent assault charges, has lost his bid for an appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court.

Zak Goldstein, an attorney who specializes in criminal defense appeals in Pennsylvania, told NNPA Newswire that the court’s denial of Cosby isn’t the last hurrah for the actor and comedian.

Goldstein, who does not represent Cosby, outlines what’s next for Cosby and his team. ~ Editors

Unfortunately, the majority of criminal appeals in Pennsylvania are denied by the Superior Court – meaning it is relatively rare for them to reverse a criminal defendant’s conviction or sentence.

In my experience, this seems to hold true whether the case was a high-profile case or not.

It happens, but the error committed by the trial court has to be significant AND preserved by the trial attorney, meaning the trial attorney must have made a timely objection at the time that the error occurred.

The case law directs the Superior Court to provide a great deal of deference to the rulings of the trial judge for most evidentiary issues.

For example, the issue of whether the other accusers who were not actually part of the case should have been allowed to testify is an issue where the Superior Court applies an “abuse of discretion standard.”

This means that they will not review the issue for whether they would have admitted the evidence themselves if they were initially making the ruling, but instead they look at whether it was unreasonable for the trial judge to make that ruling.

Unless the judge was clearly wrong, they are not going to reverse the conviction for that reason.

With respect to prior bad acts evidence, such as these other accusers, trial courts often let this type of evidence in where the Commonwealth can show that the allegations were similar or somewhat similar to the allegations in the current case, and the appellate courts usually approve of this.

It then becomes incredibly difficult to obtain a fair trial as this type of propensity evidence is overwhelmingly prejudicial.

This is particularly true in cases involving sex offenses. Most cases involving alleged sex crimes do not involve forensic evidence, and there are usually not any witnesses other than the complainant.

Therefore, prosecutors have responded by pushing for rules which make it easier to obtain a conviction and defend a conviction in these types of cases.

By piling on with other unproven allegations, even where the defendant is not charged with those offenses, the prosecution increases its chances of obtaining a conviction.

In my view, the case law which the Superior Court followed in this case does not adequately recognize the overwhelming, prejudicial effect of this type of evidence and the way in which it makes it incredibly difficult to obtain a fair trial on the actual allegations in question.

It is not surprising to me that the first trial, where only one “prior bad act” was allowed into evidence, resulted in a hung jury while the second trial, where more accusers were allowed to testify, resulted in a conviction.

This type of evidence is admitted in criminal trials every day throughout the state.

The thing that was really baffling to me in this case was that the ruling changed in the Commonwealth’s favor after the first trial.

Mr. Cosby has a number of potential avenues through which he could continue to pursue his appeal. First, he could file an application for re-argument en banc.

The initial ruling by the Superior Court was made by a panel of three judges.

The application for re-argument en banc asks the court to have a panel of nine judges review the case instead.

If the court votes to grant re-argument, then the opinion would be withdrawn, and a new briefing schedule would be set. Nine Superior Court judges would then consider the appeal.

His second option is to forego the application for re-argument and appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court by filing a Petition for Allowance of Appeal.

This would mean asking the Supreme Court to review the case. The PA Supreme Court does not have to accept an appeal.

Instead, they typically only review a case when there is some new issue for which there is no case law or where the case law has become outdated, when the Superior Court’s ruling is clearly incorrect, or when there are conflicting opinions between panels of the Superior Court that cannot really be reconciled. The PA Supreme Court does not hear very many cases each year. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, however, has been relatively progressive on criminal issues recently.

Finally, with respect to a direct appeal, if re-argument and a Petition for Allowance of Appeal are unsuccessful, he could appeal to the United States Supreme Court if there was some federal issue involved that he would like to raise.

It is not too late to file a Post-Conviction Relief Act Petition and allege the ineffective assistance of counsel.

Generally, direct appeals come first, meaning that a defendant who is unhappy with the outcome would first ask the Superior Court and possibly the Supreme Court to overturn the conviction or sentence.

When that fails, the sentence becomes final, and a defendant can file a Post-Conviction Relief Act Petition (PCRA) and allege that the lawyer did something wrong.

A direct appeal deals with errors made by the judge, while a PCRA Petition alleges errors made by the trial and/or appellate attorney. You typically have one year from the date on which the sentence becomes final to file a PCRA Petition.

The sentence does not become final until thirty days after the Superior Court affirms a conviction or ninety days after the PA Supreme Court affirms a conviction.

The direct appeal, if you are going to file one, has to come first as you cannot file one after litigating a PCRA if you have missed the deadline, and they cannot be litigated at the same time.

A PCRA Petition goes back to the trial judge who heard the case for an initial ruling. If the trial judge denies it, then there can be another round of appeals to the Superior Court and the Supreme Court.

If those are unsuccessful, a defendant can file a Habeas Petition in federal court again alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, but it is not easy to overturn a state court conviction in federal court.

Zak Goldstein is a Philadelphia-based criminal appeals attorney with the firm, Goldstein Mehta LLC. You can visit his website at www.goldsteinmehta.com, or follow him on Twitter @ZakTGoldstein.

Up Next

House Judiciary Committee Approves Impeachment of Trump

Don't Miss

Michael Davenport Basks in Adoration

Oakland Post

2 Comments

Pingback: Panafricanmedia Networks

#NNPA BlackPress

WATCH LIVE! — NNPA 2023 National Leadership Awards Reception

NNPA NEWSWIRE — Welcome to the NNPA 2023 National Leadership Awards Reception
The post WATCH LIVE! — NNPA 2023 National Leadership Awards Reception first appeared on BlackPressUSA.

Published

1 week ago

September 22, 2023

admin

The post WATCH LIVE! — NNPA 2023 National Leadership Awards Reception first appeared on BlackPressUSA.

#NNPA BlackPress

OP-ED: Delivering Climate Resilience Funding to Communities that Need it the Most

NNPA NEWSWIRE — Just last month, FEMA announced nearly $3 billion in climate mitigation project selections nationwide to help communities build resilience through its Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) national competition and Flood Mitigation Assistance program. In total, more than 50% of these projects will benefit disadvantaged communities, and in particular, 70% of BRIC projects will do the same.
The post OP-ED: Delivering Climate Resilience Funding to Communities that Need it the Most first appeared on BlackPressUSA.

Published

1 week ago

September 22, 2023

admin

By Erik A. Hooks, FEMA Deputy Administrator

We know that disasters do not discriminate. Yet, recovery from the same event can be uneven from community to community, perpetuating pre-existing inequalities. Recognizing these disparities, FEMA and the entire Biden-Harris Administration have prioritized equity when it comes to accessing federal programs and resources.

The numbers tell the story.

Just last month, FEMA announced nearly $3 billion in climate mitigation project selections nationwide to help communities build resilience through its Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) national competition and Flood Mitigation Assistance program. In total, more than 50% of these projects will benefit disadvantaged communities, and in particular, 70% of BRIC projects will do the same.

These selections further underscore the Biden-Harris Administration’s commitment to equity and reaffirm FEMA’s mission of helping people before, during and after disasters, delivering funding to the communities that need it most.

Building on this momentum and our people-first approach, FEMA recently announced the initial designation of nearly 500 census tracts, which will be eligible for increased federal support to become more resilient to natural hazards and extreme weather worsened by the climate crisis. FEMA will use “Community Disaster Resilience Zone” designations to direct and manage financial and technical assistance for resilience projects nationwide, targeting communities most at risk due to climate change. More Community Disaster Resilience Zone designations, including tribal lands and territories, are expected to be announced in the fall of 2023.

These types of investments have, and will yield a significant return on investment for communities nationwide.

For example, in my home state of North Carolina, the historic community of Princeville, founded by freed African American slaves, uses BRIC funding to move vulnerable homes and critical utilities out of flood-prone areas.

In East Harlem, BRIC dollars will provide nature-based flood control solutions to mitigate the impacts of extreme rainfall events in the Clinton low-income housing community.

While we are encouraged by these investments, we know more must be done.

Not every community has the personnel, the time or the resources to apply for these federal dollars. Fortunately, FEMA offers free, Direct Technical Assistance to help under-resourced communities navigate the grant application process and get connected with critical resources. Under the leadership of FEMA Administrator Deanne Criswell, this assistance has been a game-changer, reducing barriers and providing even more flexible, customer-focused, tailored support to communities interested in building and sustaining successful resilience programs.

In Eastwick, Philadelphia, FEMA’s dedicated support helped the city with outreach to multiple federal agencies. Together, we built a comprehensive community-led flood mitigation strategy. When applied and implemented, this will make this community more resilient to hazards like flooding, which was negatively affecting many neighborhood blocks.

In DePue, Illinois, we worked hand-in-hand with communities to improve their ability to submit high-quality funding applications for hazard mitigation projects. We are happy to share that DePue is the first Direct Technical Assistance community to be selected in the BRIC national competition. And, we know they will not be the last. Thanks to this assistance and their ambition, DePue was awarded more than $20 million to build a new wastewater treatment plant, which will reduce flooding and raw sewage back-up into the basements of homes.

In total, our agency is working with over 70 communities, including tribal nations, to increase access to funding for mitigation projects that will make communities more livable and resilient.

With extreme weather events becoming increasingly intense and frequent due to climate change, we must keep pressing forward and continue investing in ways to better protect ourselves and our neighbors. And we are encouraged that local officials are engaging with us to learn more about the benefits of the BRIC non-financial Direct Technical Assistance initiative—just last week, we saw hundreds of participants nationwide register for a recent webinar on this important topic.

We want to see even more communities take advantage of this initiative, and, ultimately, obtain grants for innovative and forward-looking resilience projects. To that end, FEMA recently published a blog with five steps to help local communities and tribal nations learn more about the benefits of this non-financial technical assistance to access federal funding. I hope your community will take action and submit a letter of interest for this exciting opportunity and increase meaningful mitigation work throughout the country.

With the pace of disasters accelerating, communities can utilize federal resources to reduce their risk and take action to save property and lives. FEMA stands ready to be a partner and collaborator with any community that is ready to implement creative mitigation strategies and help build our nation’s resilience.

The post OP-ED: Delivering Climate Resilience Funding to Communities that Need it the Most first appeared on BlackPressUSA.

#NNPA BlackPress

Tale of Two Underground Railroad Communities

ARIZONA INFORMANT — Prior to the Civil War, many communities in the Ohio River Valley were a part of an elaborate system that provided resources and protection for enslaved persons from Southern states on their journey to freedom. Once someone crossed the Ohio River, they traveled along unknown terrain of trails to safe houses and hiding places that would become known as the Underground Railroad.
The post Tale of Two Underground Railroad Communities first appeared on BlackPressUSA.

Published

1 week ago

September 20, 2023

admin

By Christopher J. Miller, Sr. Director of Education & Community Engagement, National Underground Railroad Freedom Center

Christopher J. Miller

September is International Underground Railroad Month.

This proclamation began in the State of Maryland in 2019, and now more than 11 States officially celebrate one of the most significant eras in U.S. history. With the signing of Ohio HB 340 in June 2022, Ohio became the 12^th state to designate September International Underground Railroad Month.

Many history enthusiasts and scholars hope the momentum of the proclamation spreads to other states so that all our forebears of freedom are remembered.

Examining this era, you find that the Ohio River Valley is instrumental in the many narratives of freedom seekers. These stories are critical to our understanding of race relations and civic responsibilities.

Before the Civil War, many communities in the Ohio River Valley were part of an elaborate system that provided resources and protection for enslaved persons from Southern states on their journey to freedom. Once someone crossed the Ohio River, they traveled along unknown terrain of trails to safe houses and hiding places that would become known as the Underground Railroad.

Gateway to Freedom sign

The Underground Railroad was comprised of courageous people who were held to a higher law that confronted the institution of slavery with acts of civil disobedience by helping freedom seekers elude enslavers and slave hunters and help them get to Canada.

Many communities were a force for freedom along the more than 900-mile stretch of the Ohio River Valley, but I would like to focus on two significant communities.

Southern Indiana was a major part of this history. It was originally believed that there were from Posey to South Bend, Corydon to Porter, and Madison to DeKalb County, with many stops in between.

In further examination, the Underground Railroad in Indiana was a web of trails through the forests, swamps, briars, and dirt roads. The city that is often overlooked in reflecting on the history of the Underground Railroad is New Albany, Indiana.

By 1850, New Albany was the largest city in Indiana, with a population of 8,632. Free Blacks accounted for 502 of that population. Across the river, Louisville was Kentucky’s largest city, with a population of 42,829. A quarter of the 6,687 Black population were free in Louisville.

Town Clock Church (aerial view)

Louisville and New Albany would grow to become a significant region for Underground Railroad activity. People like Henson McIntosh became a prominent community member and major Underground Railroad conductor. McIntosh was one of approximately ten Underground Railroad agents in New Albany who used their wealth and influence to impact the lives of freedom seekers crossing the Ohio River.

The Carnegie Center for Art & History is an outstanding resource that continues to preserve New Albany’s role during the Underground Railroad era. Approximately 104 miles east along the Ohio River is another institution that plays a critical role in elevating the profile of the Underground Railroad on a national scope.

Inside Town Clock Church New Albany Indiana safe house

The National Underground Railroad Freedom Center is located on the banks of the Ohio River in Cincinnati, Ohio.

By 1850, Cincinnati would grow to be the 6^th largest city in the Union, with a sizable Black population.

The Freedom Center is prominently located in the heart of a historic Black community called Little Africa. Although the community no longer exists, its legacy lives on through the Freedom Center.

As with New Albany, the community that resided along the banks of the river served an important role in the story of the Underground Railroad. Little Africa was the gateway to freedom for thousands of freedom seekers escaping slavery.

Although there were Underground Railroad networks throughout the country, Ohio had the most active network of any other state, with approximately 3,000 miles of routes used by an estimated 40,000 freedom seekers that crossed through Little Africa.

Despite the growth of enslavement leading up to the Civil War, communities such as Little Africa and New Albany reveal the realities regarding race relations and a model for the dignity of human life through their respective efforts to be kind and resilient friends for the freedom seekers.

For More Information:

National Underground Railroad Freedom Center – https://freedomcenter.org/

Cincinnati Tourism – https://www.visitcincy.com/

Carnegie Center for Art & History – https://carnegiecenter.org/

Southern Indiana Tourism – https://www.gosoin.com/

The post Tale of Two Underground Railroad Communities first appeared on BlackPressUSA.