Jump to content

COMMONWEALTH vs GEORGE HOPKINS 10-23-19


Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Super Don-O said:

And I thought I couldn't miss VK any more...

Was thinking of VK also....

And just realized Cosby, Sandusky and GH all PENNsylvania residents..... ugh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Any DCP Legal Scholars like to opine?  Looks like Bergstrom made a motion to "Dismiss Count #1" & a "Motion to Compel"?  Was the "Motion to Compel" for the court to enforce the defense request for some type of evidence such as the video interviews with the victims?  Court actions by email on Friday, June 26, 2020:

1       06/26/2020                                                                        Anthony, James T.
Order Denying Motion to Dismiss Count 1 and Dismissing Motion to Compel.                 

03/05/2020                                     E-Mail

Bergstrom, Thomas A.       
06/26/2020                                     E-Mail

Lehigh County District Attorney's Office

Edited by keystone3ply
cx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, keystone3ply said:

Any DCP Legal Scholars like to opine?  Looks like Bergstrom made a motion to "Dismiss Count #1" & a "Motion to Compel"?  Was the "Motion to Compel" for the court to enforce the defense request for some type of evidence such as the video interviews with the victims?  Court actions by email on Friday, June 26, 2020:

1       06/26/2020                                                                        Anthony, James T.
Order Denying Motion to Dismiss Count 1 and Dismissing Motion to Compel.                 

03/05/2020                                     E-Mail

Bergstrom, Thomas A.       
06/26/2020                                     E-Mail

Lehigh County District Attorney's Office

 

The way I  read this is back on 27 Sep 2019 (see link) GH's counsel filed Motion to Dismiss & then on 14 Oct there was a hearing on 'Motion to Compel' re the Philly Inquirer concerning the video interviews you referenced.

The way I read this is that the Judge said 'Nope' to both.  I think this will further press GH to take whatever plea deal the Commonwealth Attorney is offering.  But he may still press for a jury trial.  Time will tell.  

Looking at the 2 main news outlets covering the story I don't see any updates.  

Here is a link to the electronic docket sheets 

 

https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/CPReport.ashx?docketNumber=CP-39-CR-0005538-2018&dnh=ydjtESJlJf%2fH60wd1QajOg%3d%3d

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What may be interesting is the current appeal by Bill Cosby. I think one of the appeals revolves around permitting the testimony of the women from the past, who were not part of the charges against Cosby. That might have some impact on the Hopkins case, one way or the other, depending on the appeal outcome.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, MikeD said:

What may be interesting is the current appeal by Bill Cosby. I think one of the appeals revolves around permitting the testimony of the women from the past, who were not part of the charges against Cosby. That might have some impact on the Hopkins case, one way or the other, depending on the appeal outcome.

Interesting.  I didn't pay attention to the story last week but your post caused me to look it up.  The info can be found from several news sites but this quote is from the CNN article:
 

"Tuesday's ruling grants Cosby the ability to appeal two issues in the case. One issue focuses on the "prior bad act" witnesses who testified about alleged assaults that were not part of the charges, and the second focuses on the prior district attorney's decision not to charge Cosby a decade ago.
 
At his criminal trial, Montgomery County Judge Steven O'Neill allowed five other women, including supermodel Janice Dickinson, to testify that Cosby had incapacitated and assaulted them in other incidents. Prosecutors said these "prior bad act" witnesses showed Cosby had a pattern in his assaults.
 
Cosby's legal team has argued that their testimony was dated and dissimilar from the criminal accusations and should not have been allowed in court."
 
 
Edited by keystone3ply
cx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, keystone3ply said:

Interesting.  I didn't pay attention to the story last week but your post caused me to look it up.  The info can be found from several news sites but this quote is from the CNN article:
 

"Tuesday's ruling grants Cosby the ability to appeal two issues in the case. One issue focuses on the "prior bad act" witnesses who testified about alleged assaults that were not part of the charges, and the second focuses on the prior district attorney's decision not to charge Cosby a decade ago.
 
At his criminal trial, Montgomery County Judge Steven O'Neill allowed five other women, including supermodel Janice Dickinson, to testify that Cosby had incapacitated and assaulted them in other incidents. Prosecutors said these "prior bad act" witnesses showed Cosby had a pattern in his assaults.
 
Cosby's legal team has argued that their testimony was dated and dissimilar from the criminal accusations and should not have been allowed in court."
 
 

I wondered the same, but the legal details are what matter.  And I don't know if the issues are the same or not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, IllianaLancerContra said:

I wondered the same, but the legal details are what matter.  And I don't know if the issues are the same or not. 

I think the issue that MikeD maybe referring to is possible prosecution witnesses or victims against the defendant that weren't able to be charged due to the statue of limitations.  They couldn't charge the defendant since the statue of limitations had expired.  I know there were several allegations from other women against GH that were passed the required date.        

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, keystone3ply said:

I think the issue that MikeD maybe referring to is possible prosecution witnesses or victims against the defendant that weren't able to be charged due to the statue of limitations.  They couldn't charge the defendant since the statue of limitations had expired.  I know there were several allegations from other women against GH that were passed the required date.        

In addition, the location of those earlier incidents with GH may not have taken place in PA.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, keystone3ply said:

I think the issue that MikeD maybe referring to is possible prosecution witnesses or victims against the defendant that weren't able to be charged due to the statue of limitations.  They couldn't charge the defendant since the statue of limitations had expired.  I know there were several allegations from other women against GH that were passed the required date.        

agreed. between trying to block this as well as get the full videos from the paper played, it doesn't bode well

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...