Prosecutors Seek to Boot Cosby's Out-of-State Lawyers
Prosecutors in Bill Cosby's criminal trial said the lawyers made false allegations to the court and "have not earned the right to practice here in Pennsylvania," but the judge allowed them to stay in place for now.
March 05, 2018 at 12:20 PM
4 minute read
Bill Cosby, accompanied by Andrew Wyatt, departs after a pretrial hearing in Cosby's sexual assault case at the Montgomery County Courthouse in Norristown on Aug. 22, 2017. Photo: Matt Rourke/AP
In pretrial hearings Monday, prosecutors changed their stance on whether Bill Cosby's lawyers should be allowed to represent the comedian in his looming Pennsylvania criminal trial.
Montgomery County District Attorney Kevin Steele said in court that he opposed a motion seeking to continue allowing lawyers Tom Mesereau, Kathleen Bliss, Jason Hicks and Becky James to practice law in Pennsylvania for the purposes of representing Cosby. Steele alleged that the lawyers have made false allegations to the court, violated Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct and should not be admitted pro hac vice with Cosby's new local counsel as their sponsor.
“These folks come as guests of the court. They have not earned the right to practice here in Pennsylvania,” Steele said. “We cannot agree to their admission pro hac vice.”
Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas Judge Steven T. O'Neill granted the lawyers pro hac vice admission, but without prejudice.
“You're on notice” of Steele's claims, O'Neill said. But without a written motion or specific evidence as to Steele's allegations, he said, the court had to move forward.
O'Neill also denied two motions to dismiss that Cosby's lawyers argued on Monday—one based on allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, and another that argued the alleged assault may have taken place outside the allowable timeframe based on Pennsylvania's statute of limitations.
Steele alleged that Cosby's lawyers falsely accused him of violating court orders in their motion to dismiss based on alleged prosecutorial misconduct, which included allegations that the district attorney's office destroyed exculpatory evidence.
In arguing that motion Monday morning, Bliss said prosecutors should have more thoroughly investigated the claims of a potential witness, Marguerite Jackson. Jackson, according to the defense, is a former co-worker of Andrea Constand's who said Constand had told Jackson she could lie about her alleged assault in order to secure a payout.
Steele argued that issue is not fit for pretrial motions practice, and should be left for trial. He also argued that prosecutors were compliant with discovery rules, contrary to Cosby's lawyers' claims.
Mesereau, Bliss, Hicks and James had to seek pro hac vice admission again after Cosby's local counsel changed. His former Pennsylvania lawyer, Sam Silver of Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, left the case in January, and Lane Vines of Berger & Montague entered his appearance in the case Feb. 1.
Cosby is facing three counts of aggravated indecent assault for allegedly sexually assaulting Constand in 2004. His trial is set to begin April 2.
Cosby's earlier trial in June ended in a mistrial after jurors were unable to reach a verdict. Cosby had an entirely different legal team for that trial, led by Philadelphia lawyer Brian McMonagle and California lawyer Angela Agrusa.
Also Monday, prosecutors argued they should be allowed to admit the testimony of 19 other women who have accused Cosby of sexual assault. Assistant District Attorney Adrienne Jappe argued that the other accusations showed a common scheme by Cosby to drug and assault women. Jappe also argued that under the doctrine of chances, each additional similar accusation made it less likely that Cosby was not aware of his conduct, or of Constand's inability to consent.
O'Neill only allowed one accuser, aside from Constand, to testify at Cosby's first trial. But he made clear Monday that he is considering the motion anew at the retrial.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Recover, Reflect, Retool and Retry': Lessons From Women Atop Pa. Legal Community
3 minute readEDPA's New Chief Judge Plans to Advance Efforts to Combat Threats to Judiciary
3 minute readPa. Superior Court's Next Leader Looks Ahead to Looming Challenges in Coming Years
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 4Meet the Lawyers on Kamala Harris' Transition Team
- 5Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250