Cosby Lawyers, Prosecutors Spar Over Old Deposition, but Not Cosby's
Cosby's defense lawyers want to use decade-old deposition testimony from Andrea Constand's friend, who they say is unavailable for trial testimony.
April 20, 2018 at 01:36 PM
4 minute read
Bill Cosby. (Photo: Bastiaan Slabbers/NurPhoto/Sipa USA)(Sipa via AP Images)
Bill Cosby's lawyers want to introduce more than a decade-old civil deposition testimony from Sheri Williams, a close friend of accuser Andrea Constand, after the defense was unable to serve a subpoena on her to appear at Cosby's criminal retrial.
Cosby is on trial for allegedly drugging and sexually assaulting Constand in 2004. His defense lawyers started presenting their case Wednesday.
The defense filed a notice late Thursday of its plan to introduce portions of Williams' testimony from the civil case Constand v. Cosby, which settled in 2006. In its notice, the defense referred specifically to Williams' statements about her knowledge of the alleged assault, and about Constand's reasons for leaving her job at Temple University.
Cosby's lawyers tried to serve a trial subpoena on Williams seven times, the filing said, and then mailed her a copy of the subpoena with instructions to attend a hearing to domesticate the subpoena. She did not show for the hearing.
Arguing the matter Friday in court, defense lawyer Jaya Gupta said the court should allow the deposition under Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 804(b)(1).
“Ms. Constand's interests and the commonwealth's interests are aligned,” Gupta said. “The goal of both parties is to show the defendant committed assault.”
She also noted that the prosecution was allowed to present Cosby's civil deposition from 2005 and 2006. His current lawyers did not have the opportunity to defend Cosby at that deposition, she said.
Montgomery County District Attorney Kevin Steele argued that Cosby's deposition is distinguishable from Williams' testimony.
“The defendant's deposition comes in as an admission,” Steele said. “Whether that admission is in a deposition, whether that admission is out on the street … that's an admission by the defendant, and that's why that comes in.”
Steele also noted that the defense can put Cosby on the stand to respond to his own deposition, while the prosecution cannot do the same with Williams.
“There are aspects of this case where we would love to ask Ms. Williams questions about. But we're not going to get it because they're just going to read what they want out of a deposition at trial where we can't cross-examine,” Steele said.
Judge Steven T. O'Neill said he will not rule on the matter until April 23, when the defense is able to bring a witness to show that it made a sufficient effort to serve the subpoena. But he noted during the parties' arguments that the cases cited in Cosby's filing are not precedential rulings O'Neill can cite in his own decision.
“You're arguing to some degree that I should make new law,” he said to Gupta.
O'Neill said things would be different if the defense made contact with Williams and found that she couldn't travel. Then, he said, she could give deposition testimony and lawyers from both sides would have the opportunity to be there.
The defense called three witnesses Friday, including Debbie Meister, a personal assistant to Cosby, and Kim Harjo, who worked at the public relations firm that represented Cosby in 2004. Meister and Harjo testified about portions of Cosby's flight and travel schedules from late 2003 and early 2004.
Cosby's lawyers also called Robert Russell, a friend of Constand's from 2000 to 2001, who testified about Constand's broadcasting aspirations. The defense had planned to ask him about Constand using drugs when he knew her, and her hopes to become a millionaire, but O'Neill ruled before the testimony that he would not allow it.
O'Neill has said he expects closing arguments to begin early next week.
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
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