Cosby Seeks Judge's Recusal, Citing Conflict With Former DA
Bill Cosby wants the judge overseeing his case to recuse because of an alleged personal conflict dating back almost 20 years.
September 11, 2018 at 04:06 PM
4 minute read
Less than two weeks before he is to be sentenced, Bill Cosby wants the judge overseeing his case to step aside over an alleged personal conflict involving former Montgomery County District Attorney Bruce Castor Jr.
Lawyers for Cosby filed a motion Tuesday in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas seeking “disclosures regarding prior interactions with Bruce Castor,” asking the court to vacate its 2016 ruling on Cosby's petition for writ of habeas corpus and arguing that Judge Steven T. O'Neill recuse from the case.
Cosby was found guilty of three counts of aggravated indecent assault in April, based on Andrea Constand's allegations that he sexually assaulted her in 2004. His sentencing hearing is set to begin Sept. 24.
Cosby filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus shortly after charges were filed, arguing that his attorneys in 2005 had an enforceable agreement with the District Attorney's Office that he would not be prosecuted. Castor was district attorney at that time, and he made a public announcement when his office chose not to bring charges against Cosby based on Constand's allegations.
Current District Attorney Kevin Steele had reopened the case and brought charges after portions of a civil deposition Cosby gave in 2005 and 2006, in which Cosby admitted to giving a woman drugs in order to have sex with her, became public.
Castor testified at the hearing in February 2016 on that petition, and said he made a binding promise in 2005 that Cosby would not be prosecuted. But after two days of testimony and argument, O'Neill ruled in prosecutors' favor, denying Cosby's petition to have the charges dismissed. O'Neill's order said a credibility judgment was inherent in his ruling.
Cosby's lawyers want a new hearing on the petition, their latest motion said, with a new judge.
In the motion filed Tuesday, Cosby's lawyers pointed to a 2018 article in The National Enquirer, which had suggested that O'Neill held a grudge against Castor. That article led to further investigation by Cosby's attorneys, the motion said.
The motion alleged that Castor and O'Neill have a “hostile and acrimonious” relationship, dating back to when they campaigned against each other for the Republican nomination for Montgomery County district attorney in 1999.
“As applied to the assessment of Castor's credibility made by Judge O'Neill in resolving defendant's due process claims in 2016, these facts constitute information that 'the parties or their lawyers might reasonably consider relevant to a possible motion for disqualification or recusal, even if the judge believes there is no proper basis for disqualification or recusal,'” the motion said, asking the court to put on the record “the true facts of his interactions with Mr. Castor” during the 1999 campaign and leading up to it.
Cosby's lawyers also argued that O'Neill should revisit his recusal decision because he, rather than an impartial jury, will be the fact-finder at sentencing. Cosby has argued that O'Neill's impartiality is questionable because his wife is a social worker who works with sexual assault victims, and she has spoken publicly about issues surrounding sexual assault.
In a statement Tuesday, Steele said, “This defense filing is simply a desperate, 11th-hour attempt by Cosby's current set of attorneys to stop the sentencing of a convicted felon for his crimes. This motion reflects the fact that the defendant accepts no responsibility for his own actions. We will be filing a response.”
Castor did not immediately respond to a call for comment Tuesday.
READ MORE:
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
- 1$34M Verdict Shows How 1 Claim Could Ratchet Up Employment Suit
- 2OIG Progress Puts Connecticut in Leadership Position
- 3Bankruptcy Judge to Step Down in 2025
- 4Justices Seek Solicitor General's Views on Music Industry's Copyright Case Against ISP
- 5Judge to hear arguments on whether Google's advertising tech constitutes a monopoly
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