Cosby Lawyers Question Accuser About Money-Making Endeavors
The comedian's defense team emphasized Andrea Constand's financial situation more so than Cosby's former defense lawyers did at his 2017 trial.
April 16, 2018 at 02:57 PM
5 minute read
Andrea Constand walks to the courtroom during Bill Cosby's sexual assault trial at the Montgomery County Courthouse in Norristown, Pa., on June 6, 2017. (AP Photo/Matt Rourke, Pool)
Defense lawyers questioning Bill Cosby accuser Andrea Constand spent part of Monday zeroing in on her financial situation, in an apparent effort to make economic self-interest more central to the case than during Cosby's initial trial last year.
Cosby is being retried on three counts of aggravated indecent assault, based on Constand's allegations that he sexually assaulted her in 2004. Constand continued her testimony Monday morning, after a full day of testimony April 13.
At Cosby's first trial, his defense lawyers spent much of their time on cross-examination looking at Constand's phone records, suggesting that her continued contact with Cosby after the alleged assault indicated a romantic relationship.
Tom Mesereau briefly touched on the phone records, particularly pointing to calls between Constand and Cosby on Valentine's Day, several weeks after the alleged assault. But he focused a more significant portion of his cross-examination on matters related to Constand's financial situation, and her civil settlement with Cosby.
Judge Steven T. O'Neill allowed certain evidence about the settlement to be used at retrial, but it was not used during the 2017 trial.
Pointing to a collection of emails to and from Constand's address, Mesereau asked a number of questions about Constand's participation in what she called an “internet networking” business. Mesereau referred to the business as a “pyramid scheme” based on Constand's emails in which she called it a “pyramid.”
Later, prosecutor Kristen Gibbons Feden read Constand the definition of a pyramid scheme and asked Constand whether that accurately described the business she was involved in. Constand said no.
Mesereau also asked a number of questions about Constand's $3.38 million confidential settlement with Cosby in 2006, and her agreement not to discuss the case. He asked her several times why she was testifying in the criminal case, but prosecutors objected to those questions before Constand could answer.
Mesereau asked Constand why she would agree to the settlement, and to keep silent about the arrangement, but she didn't say money was the reason.
“It was a very painstaking process for me and my family. It tore my family apart, and we just wanted it over,” Constand said.
After cross-examination, Feden asked Constand to read from the confidential settlement agreement, particularly a portion stating that speaking with law enforcement pursuant to a criminal investigation would be an exception from the agreement.
Mesereau also asked Constand about Marguerite Jackson, an academic adviser at Temple. Jackson, according to court documents, has alleged that Constand told her about a plan to bring false accusations about sexual assault against a celebrity in order to make money.
Mesereau asked Constand if she ever had such a conversation with Jackson, and Constand said no.
Cosby's lawyers have sought to admit testimony from Jackson at the retrial, and O'Neill has said he will allow it.
During opening arguments at retrial, Mesereau told the jury that Constand only brought accusations against Cosby in order to make money.
Also Monday, jurors heard from Constand's mother, Gianna Constand, who testified about her daughter's return to Toronto in 2005 after the alleged assault. Andrea Constand appeared to be depressed, her mother testified.
Gianna Constand testified about her calls with Cosby after she learned of the alleged assault. During those calls, she testified, Cosby admitted to the sexual contact and that he gave Andrea Constand pills, but he would not name the drug.
“I was very combative, very angry, very rude, very confronting, because he was trying to manipulate the conversation,” Gianna Constand said. “As I said to him, I just want the truth.”
Cross-examination between defense attorney Kathleen Bliss and Gianna Constand became contentious.
Bliss asked Constand whether the depression she said she noticed in her daughter could have been due to other factors, instead of the alleged assault.
“Are you trying to convince me?” Constand responded. “You're wrong.”
Constand accused Bliss at one point of trying to confuse her with her questions, and expressed annoyance with the lawyer's tone.
“Why are you asking me in that voice? You were just nice a minute ago,” Constand said in response to one of Bliss' questions.
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 AllPhila. Med Mal Lawyers In for Busy Year as Court Adjusts for Filing Boom
3 minute read'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 readTrending Stories
- 1LA Judge Anne Hwang Confirmed to the Federal Bench
- 2NY Court Leaders Ask for 10% Judiciary Budget Increase
- 3ClaimClam Wanted to Boost Class Action Claims Rates. But Judges and Attorneys Fought Back
- 4'We Will Sue ... Immediately': AG Bonta Says He's Ready to Spend $25M Battling Trump
- 511 Red State AGs Demand Damages in Antitrust Lawsuit Shaming ESG Climate Investors
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