Torchde Team | October 8, 2020
The Bill Cosby case is convoluted on so many levels. In 2018 Cosby was found guilty of drugging and sexually assaulting Andrea Constand at his home in 2004. Recently, in June 2020 – Cosby was awarded the chance for the Supreme Court to review his appeal. One of the arguments was that the conviction was partially due to the judge allowing testimony from five other women as evidence.
Many are scratching their heads in confusion about this, because the purpose of using ‘prior bad acts’ is to establish that the person has a history of the offence. Still, being awarded the chance to overturn a conviction is extremely rare and may indicate that some of the evidence used against Cosby was illegal or unsubstantiated. The media narrowed down the complaints of the appeal to “prior bad acts” only. However it actually includes several complaints regarding the actions of judge, Steven T. O’Neill, including a bias.
Cosby Prosecutor and Judicial Bias
Former District Attorney Bruce Castor promised Cosby that he would never be charged with any crime related to Andrea Constand’s allegations during the civil deposition. The reason – Castor reviewed the evidence and felt that Constand lacked credibility and a criminal case would go nowhere. Cosby waived his fifth amendment rights (against self incrimination) and testified. Judge O’Neill and Castor had a bad history since 1999, when it was exposed that O’neill had an extramarital affair with one of Castor’s colleagues. O’neill blamed Castor for trying to ruin his life and marriage. Despite this history, O’neill assigned himself as judge over the Cosby case working alongside Prosecutor Kevin Steele.
According to the appeal : “Mr. Cosby was not prosecuted until First Assistant District Attorney Kevin Steele decided to make the matter an issue in his 2015 campaign for election against Mr. Castor, who had decided to again run for District Attorney. Campaigning on a promise to prosecute Mr. Cosby, Mr. Steele ultimately won the election and charged Mr. Cosby for the very conduct for which he had been promised he would never be prosecuted, a promise on which Mr. Cosby had expressly relied, to his detriment.”
Case of Prior Bad Acts
Including testimony regarding prior bad acts is rare, but it’s allowed if it demonstrates a signature pattern of abuse. According to the appeal Judge O’Neill never explained why he allowed the five to testify in the second Cosby trial after allowing only one additional accuser to speak at Mr. Cosby’s first trial in 2017.
Mr. Cosby’s lawyers wrote in the statement: “This evidence was used to strip Cosby of his presumption of innocence and to try to establish that Cosby had the propensity to sexually assault women. This evidence never should have been admitted at trial.” They also claim that the “witnesses’ allegations were too remote in time and too dissimilar to the Constand allegations.”
There’s a variety of claims but not all the women who testified in the second trial allege that they were raped or had sexual contact with Cosby. One witness was unsure if anything happened.The overall theme is the same – they claimed to be given a drug that left them immobile and unable to defend themselves. Another witness admitted under oath that it was a girlfriend that actually gave her the Quaalude.
Alleged Admission of Drugging Women
Cosby made statements in a lawsuit brought by Constand that the media and prosecutors continuously use as evidence of his guilt. In the civil deposition where he admitted to giving quaaludes, he stated that he gave 1 woman a quaalude at her request in the 1970’s. He also admitted to obtaining quaaludes for women he wanted to have sex with. Did Cosby’s admission mean that he drugged women without their knowledge and raped them? According to Andrea Constand’s deposition, she was unaware of what the pills were but was offered them “after complaining of an inability to sleep and pain to the head.” Quaaludes were banned in the United States in 1984.
In the eyes of the law, Cosby had a right to have his prior testimony reviewed by a judge who could make a decision free of bias. Judge Steven T. O’Neill abused his discretion, erred, and infringed on Cosby’s constitutional rights. The contentious relationship that he had with Castor was grounds for him to be recused. The appeal also states that there was strong evidence of juror bias. When the defense brought this to the judge, he refused to remove the juror. It’s impossible to conclude that a person is innocent or guilty if they’re denied the rights to a fair trial.