Judge Defends Decision Allowing Cosby Victims' Accounts at Trial
In a 1925(b) opinion filed Tuesday, Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas Judge Steven T. O'Neill argued that Bill Cosby's prison sentence should be affirmed.
May 15, 2019 at 12:19 PM
4 minute read
The judge who presided over Bill Cosby's criminal case is defending his ruling that allowed testimony from five other alleged victims of the comedian in addition to Andrea Constand, as the case goes before a state appellate court.
In a 1925(b) opinion filed Tuesday, Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas Judge Steven T. O'Neill argued that his judgment of sentence should be affirmed.
Cosby was found guilty of aggravated indecent assault last year, and was sentenced to three to 10 years in prison.
Cosby has argued on appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court that the trial court violated his due process rights by allowing the prior bad act witnesses, and he alleged that the five women's allegations were too remote and not similar enough to Constand's to be admitted.
“The importance of the time period between the earlier act and the current act is inversely proportional to the similarity of the other crimes or acts,” O'Neill write. “The more similar the crimes, the less significant the length of time that has passed.”
The claim that the five women had allegations not similar enough to Constand's is “belied by the record,” O'Neill said. In each instance, he wrote, the alleged victim: was substantially younger than Cosby, met him through her career aspirations or employment, accepted Cosby's invite to a location he controlled, consumed an intoxicant Cosby gave her, became incapacitated, and was incapable of consent.
Also in his appeal, Cosby has argued that the trial court erred by failing to excuse a juror who allegedly prejudged Cosby to be guilty before the trial. Cosby also disagreed with O'Neill's decision to allow Dr. Barbara Ziv to testify as an expert witness, and said O'Neill should have disclosed a “biased relationship with Bruce Castor,” the former Montgomery County district attorney.
Cosby has also said the court erred by refusing to dismiss charges in 2016 under Cosby's petition for writ of habeas corpus, which argued that he had been party to a nonprosecution agreement. The appeal also challenged the admission into the case of Cosby's 2005-2006 civil deposition and his prior testimony about Quaaludes. Cosby also argued that the alleged sexual assault of Constand may not have occurred within the 12-year statute of limitations.
Finally, Cosby disagreed with the court's decision not to provide certain jury instructions his lawyers had requested, and the court's decisions with regard to his sexually violent predator assessment.
O'Neill defended all of his previous rulings.
With regard to the deposition testimony and writ of habeas corpus, O'Neill said “there was no constitutional impediment to the admission of this evidence,” and “there was no promise not to prosecute.”
On the statute of limitations issue, O'Neill noted that Constand testified that the incident took place in January 2004, and a detective testified that there was no evidence to indicate that it took place before that.
As for the juror, O'Neill wrote in his opinion that his refusal to interview all of the prospective jurors from the case, who may have heard the alleged comment about Cosby's guilt, was not an error. He did interview the selected jurors who were in the room at the time of the alleged comment, the opinion said.
“The court cannot be made to guess at what issues the defendant seeks to raise on appeal,” the opinion said. The juror repeatedly denied making the alleged statement about Cosby's guilt in interviews with O'Neill, the opinion said.
The district attorney's office declined to comment on the opinion.
Harrisburg attorney Brian Perry, who is representing Cosby, did not immediately respond to a call for comment.
Read More
Bill Cosby Battling Another Firm Over Legal Fees. This Time, It's Quinn Emanuel
Cosby Defense Dilemma: Vowed Appeal Could Lengthen Prison Time
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 AllHigh Court Revives Kleinbard's Bid to Collect $70K in Legal Fees From Lancaster DA
4 minute readJudges Push for Action to Combat Increasing Threats Against Judiciary
3 minute readDispute Over Failure to Accommodate Disability Ends in $900K Settlement
3 minute readPa. Federal District Courts Reach Full Complement Following Latest Confirmation
Trending Stories
- 1Law Firms Expand Scope of Immigration Expertise, Amid Blitz of Trump Orders
- 2Latest Boutique Combination in Florida Continues Am Law 200 Merger Activity
- 3Sarno da Costa D’Aniello Maceri LLC Announces Addition of New Office in Eatontown, NJ, and Named Partner
- 4Friday Newspaper
- 5Public Notices/Calendars
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