Bill Cosby Loses Appeal as Superior Court Affirms Prison Sentence
Cosby's case raised unusual questions given a large number of additional accusers, and a purported nonprosecution agreement from when the allegations against him first surfaced. But the appellate court stood by the trial court's decisions on those issues.
December 10, 2019 at 12:03 PM
4 minute read
Bill Cosby's latest attempt to appeal his prison sentence has failed, as the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the judgment against him Tuesday morning.
A three-judge panel of the court said in a 94-page opinion that Cosby's sentence of three to 10 years' incarceration should stay in place. Cosby's case raised unusual questions given the large number of additional accusers, and a purported nonprosecution agreement from when the allegations against him first surfaced. But the appellate court stood by the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas' decisions on those issues.
A main focus of Cosby's appeal, among other arguments, was that the court erred in allowing five women who have accused him of sexual assault to testify at trial, in addition to Andrea Constand, whose allegations against him formed the basis of the criminal case. Cosby was found guilty of drugging Constand and sexually assaulting her at his home in 2004.
The appellate court said Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas Judge Steven T. O'Neill did not abuse his discretion by allowing prosecutors to use this testimony, which was presented as evidence of "prior bad acts." The Montgomery County District Attorney's Office had sought to include testimony from 19 accusers, and the judge allowed five.
"The commonwealth sought to demonstrate that appellant engaged in a pattern of non-consensual sex acts with his victims that were 'quite distinct from a typical sexual abuse pattern; so distinct, in fact, that they are all recognizable as the handiwork of the same perpetrator,'" Judge John Bender wrote for the court.
Cosby had argued that the accusations brought by the five women were too dissimilar and too distant in time to be permitted.
"We disagree that these differences render the PBA evidence inadmissible under the common plan/scheme/design or absence of mistake exceptions. It is impossible for two incidents of sexual assault involving different victims to be identical in all respects," Bender wrote.
In a statement Tuesday morning, Montgomery County District Attorney Kevin Steele said he is very pleased with the decision.
"First and foremost, it is my hope that with this last guaranteed step in the criminal justice process now complete, the victim in this case, Andrea Constand, can finally put this assault behind her and move on with her life as the strong survivor she is," Steele said.
He added: "The world is forever changed because of Andrea's bravery. With this decision, it has been affirmed that no one is above the law."
Harrisburg attorney Brian Perry of Perry Shore Weisenberger & Zemlock, who represented Cosby in the appeal, was not immediately available for comment Tuesday morning.
Also in his appeal, Cosby argued that O'Neill should have disclosed a "biased relationship with Bruce Castor," the former Montgomery County district attorney. Cosby 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.
"We cannot deem reasonable appellant's reliance on such a promise when he was represented by counsel, especially when immunity can only be granted by a court order, and where no court order granting him immunity existed," Bender wrote.
The appeal also challenged the court's decision to admit evidence from Cosby's 2005-2006 civil deposition and his prior testimony about using and distributing Quaaludes. 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.
Cosby was sentenced in September 2018, after he was found guilty of three counts of aggravated indecent assault at a retrial in April 2018. His first trial, in June 2017, ended in a mistrial when the jury was unable to reach a verdict.
|Read More
Judge Defends Decision Allowing Cosby Victims' Accounts at Trial
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 AllFederal Judge Allows Elderly Woman's Consumer Protection Suit to Proceed Against Citizens Bank
5 minute readJudge Leaves Statute of Limitations Question in Injury Crash Suit for a Jury
4 minute readSupreme Court's Ruling in 'Students for Fair Admissions' and Its Impact on DEI Initiatives in the Workplace
6 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1More Big Law Firms Rush to Match Associate Bonuses, while Some Firms Offer Potential for Even More
- 2OpenAI, NYTimes Counsel Quarrel Over Erased OpenAI Training Data
- 3Saying Your Goodbyes—Ethical Obligations When Transitioning to a New Firm
- 4Womans Suit Alleging Negligence to Sex Trafficking by Hotel Tossed by Federal Judge
- 5Dog Gone It, Target: Provider of Retailer's Mascot Dog Sues Over Contract Cancellation
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