How the Bill Cosby Guilty Verdict Will Impact Civil Litigation
The Cosby verdict is a sign that there has been a shift, particularly in he said, she said cases, toward an understanding about how hard it is to come forward.
May 18, 2018 at 02:58 PM
6 minute read
On April 26, a Pennsylvania jury handed down a historic verdict, finding Bill Cosby guilty on three counts of aggravated indecent assault for drugging and sexually assaulting Andrea Constand at his home in a Philadelphia suburb in 2004.
Far too often powerful executives and celebrities have escaped conviction on such crimes, but now justice has prevailed. There were a number of unique elements to this case, including the fact that Cosby had settled previously with Constand for a reported $3.38 million. Constand reported the assault to police in 2005, a year after it occurred, but she chose not to file charges at that time.
During his deposition related to the civil lawsuit brought by Constand, Cosby admitted to giving Quaaludes to other women, admitted to having seven prescriptions for Quaaludes during the 1970s and intended to give them to women he socialized with. He admitted to having sexual intimacy with Constand but claimed it was consensual even though she was drugged and had never actually consented verbally.
Given this historic criminal verdict, and how so many of the facts came out through a civil deposition, many plaintiff and defense attorneys are left wondering how this case will impact civil litigation going forward in sexual misconduct lawsuits. Cosby was known as “America's Dad” and up until the last few years he had a stellar reputation and public persona. In fact, Cosby's downfall began when a comedian made a joke in passing while on stage, making the entire process far more out of left field.
Roughly 60 women have come forward to make claims against Cosby, and many have filed civil lawsuits as opposed to filing criminal cases in part because of the statute of limitations in the states where the alleged assaults took place. Now, with Cosby having admitted to certain behaviors and been convicted in criminal court, he faces a wave of civil litigation involving allegations of dozens of past assaults.
Why the guilty verdict this time? We will never know exactly, but jurors who have spoken out have said that the main thing was Cosby's much earlier deposition admission that he had provided Quaaludes to other women he wanted to have intercourse with.
One juror, Harrison Snyder, wrote:
“We understood the consequences to human lives, to an American icon, and to all who are victims and we knew we needed to be comfortable with our decisions in order to sleep at night with clear consciences. Each of us is walking away with that sense of peace, knowing that we performed our duty in the manner it deserved.”
Although the jurors claimed they weren't affected by the #MeToo movement, it is hard to believe that they weren't, at least on an unconscious level.
Having represented thousands of sexual assault and harassment victims over the last 39 years, I have seen that there has definitely been a shift in the way that people view sexual abuse in the last six months. As more and more victims have come forward, often not asking for money, but instead to support their fellow victims, in my view the credibility of sexual abuse victims has soared.
In the first 38 years of my practice it felt like my clients would start a trial at a disadvantage with the perpetrator, particularly if it was a she said, he said situation. That is a problem since my guess is 90 percent of cases involve he said, she said fact patterns. That has changed a little bit since the internet and cellphones, because sometimes there are text messages and emails that provide proof, at least to some wrongdoing, but the feeling was that the perpetrator received the benefit of the doubt, and my clients, who were suing for monetary damages, had a built-in interest to lie.
It is my belief that the #MeToo movement, to at least some extent has changed that. Whether jurors realize or don't realize that they have been affected by the #MeToo movement, it feels like the benefit of the doubt has shifted from perpetrator to victim. The public is now realizing what plaintiff sexual abuse and harassment lawyers have known all along: it takes days and days and nights and nights, and sometimes years and years, to work up the courage to eventually come forward with complaints of sexual abuse and harassment, but it only take five seconds for a perpetrator to deny wrongdoing.
It appears that Cosby found that out in his second trial. Constand and the other victims who testified were believed and sometimes all they had for evidence was their words.
If this can happen in a criminal case where the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt, it seems that with a civil preponderance standard, the rules of engagement have changed. Although the handicap of asking for money in a civil case remains, the fact that thousands of women not asking for money have come forward in the press has lessened the burden.
Victims of severe sexual abuse and harassment almost invariably require thousands and sometime hundreds of thousands of dollars in future psychotherapy to heal from their wounds. That, obviously, costs money. Hopefully, moving forward, the second Cosby trial has taught us that jurors will now think more about the victims and their needs, rather than the perpetrators, who can just so easily say “never happened.”
Obviously, not every sexual abuse or harassment case is meritorious, and many men rightfully have the fear of someday being falsely accused. In those cases, hopefully, justice wins out and the defendant prevails in a case. But I believe that the Cosby verdict is a sign that there has been a shift, particularly in the he said, she said cases, toward an understanding about how hard it is to come forward in a sexual abuse case versus how easy it is to deny accountability.
About the Author
John D. Winer is an attorney at the California law firm Winer, McKenna & Burritt with over 35 years' experience representing women from all walks of life who have bravely called out sexual predators, including recent cases involving U.C. Berkeley and U.S.C. (the latter of which was featured in an op-ed in the Washington Post).
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 AllSaying Your Goodbyes—Ethical Obligations When Transitioning to a New Firm
5 minute readLost in the Legal Maze: How State Regulations Are Hindering Hemp Operators' Success
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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