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:
Castor Says 2005 Cosby Decision Was Binding
Judge Dismisses Castor's Suit Against Cosby Accuser Constand
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
© 2025 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
- 1Reality TV Couple and Pacific Palisades Neighbors Sue City of Los Angeles Over Loss of Homes to Fire
- 2Colgate Faces Class Actions Over ‘Deceptive Marketing’ of Children’s Toothpaste
- 3Inside Track: AI Is Sure to Fray Big Law's Devotion to Billable Hour
- 4Evidence Explained: Prevailing Attorney Outlines Successful Defense in Inmate Death Case
- 5The Week in Data Jan. 24: A Look at Legal Industry Trends by the Numbers
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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