Five Additional Cosby Accusers May Testify at Retrial
A judge ruled that five of Bill Cosby's accusers may testify in addition to Andrea Constand.
March 15, 2018 at 06:00 PM
3 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
With jury selection just two weeks away, Bill Cosby's retrial is already shaping up to be far from a rerun of his first criminal trial.
A Pennsylvania judge ruled March 15 that he will allow witness testimony from five women other than complainant Andrea Constand who have accused Cosby of assaulting them. At the first trial last year, the same judge allowed just one alleged victim to testify in addition to Constand.
In an order March 15, Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas Judge Steven T. O'Neill said prosecutors may choose five women to testify at Cosby's retrial, out of a group of eight he designated. Prosecutors had put forward 19 potential prior bad acts witnesses, all of whom have alleged that Cosby drugged and sexually assaulted them.
The women O'Neill put forward as possible witnesses have made the most recent allegations against Cosby. The alleged assaults all took place between 1982 and 1996. One of the eight is Kelley Johnson, who testified at Cosby's trial in June 2017 that he assaulted her in 1996.
In his order, O'Neill cited Commonwealth v. Hicks, which said that a trial court can determine how many prior bad acts witnesses may testify in a criminal case, but cannot select which witnesses the prosecutors will be allowed to present.
Leading up to Cosby's first trial, prosecutors had presented 13 of Cosby's accusers as potential prior bad acts witnesses. O'Neill only allowed one of them, Johnson, to testify.
The Montgomery County District Attorney's Office presented those same 13 accusers as potential witnesses in the retrial, along with six others. Of the eight O'Neill is allowing prosecutors to choose from, six were included in the prosecution's motion in the first trial.
O'Neill identified the witnesses by number—CPBA 2-12 through CPBA 2-19—as they were listed by the prosecutors. CPBA 2-13 and 2-17, who alleged assaults in 1982 and 1986, respectively, were not part of the group of 13 presented to the court before the first trial.
Reached for comment March 15, the District Attorney's Office did not indicate that it had selected which witnesses to call at the retrial.
“We're reviewing the judge's order and we'll be making some determinations,” District Attorney Kevin Steele said in a statement.
In an email March 15, Andrew Wyatt, a spokesman for Cosby and his legal team, said the prosecutors' presentation of the other accusers “shows how desperate they are and that this is a very weak case.” He added, “Mr. Cosby is innocent of these charges.”
Separately this week, the California Supreme Court on Wednesday denied Cosby's petition for review in a defamation case brought by Janice Dickinson, who has also accused Cosby of sexual assault. A lower appellate court had revived Dickinson's claims against Cosby in November.
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
- 1Weil Practice Leaders Expected to Leave for Paul Weiss, Latham
- 2Senators Grill Visa, Mastercard Execs on Alleged Anti-Competitive Practices, Fees
- 3Deal Watch: Gibson Dunn, V&E, Kirkland Lead Big Energy Deals in Another Strong Week in Transactions
- 4Advisory Opinion Offers 'Road Map' for Judges Defending Against Campaign Attacks
- 5Commencement of Child Victims Act at Heart of Federal Question Posed to NY's Top 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