Mistrial declared in Cosby sex assault case after days of deliberations

[rooster59]

Mistrial declared in Cosby sex assault case after days of deliberations

By Joseph Ax

 

Actor and comedian Bill Cosby (C) reacts after a judge declared a mistrial in his sexual assault trial at the Montgomery County Courthouse in Norristown, Pennsylvania, U.S., June 17, 2017. REUTERS/Lucas Jackson

 

NORRISTOWN, Pa. (Reuters) - Pennsylvania prosecutors vowed to retry comedian Bill Cosby on sexual assault charges after a jury on Saturday failed to render a unanimous verdict despite 52 hours of deliberations.

 

Judge Steven O'Neill, of the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, declared a mistrial at 10:17 a.m., following a note from jurors saying that they were hopelessly deadlocked on three counts of aggravated sexual assault.

 

The result was a victory for Cosby, 79, who had faced years in prison for allegedly drugging and sexually assaulting college administrator Andrea Constand at his home near Philadelphia in 2004. But prosecutors immediately said they would seek a second trial, which O'Neill suggested could start within four months.

 

"She's entitled to a verdict in this case," Montgomery County District Attorney Kevin Steele said at a news conference.

 

Cosby's spokesman, Andrew Wyatt, told reporters that the trial's outcome had "restored" his client's legacy.

 

But Cosby's reputation remains in tatters, following a slew of sexual assault allegations from about 60 women that have destroyed the "America's dad" image he built as star of the long-running 1980s TV comedy "The Cosby Show."

 

Constand's claim was the only one to lead to criminal charges, with many of the others dating too far back to allow for prosecution.

 

The entertainer had no visible reaction in court. As news reporters streamed out of the room, several other Cosby accusers, some in tears, waited in line to hug Constand, who smiled broadly and maintained her composure.

 

'YOU'RE NOT OFF THE HOOK'

 

Outside the courthouse, as Cosby stood silently behind them, members of his team criticized the case against him.

 

"This is what happens - juries are stuck when a prosecutor seeks to put someone in prison for things that are simply not presented in the courtroom," said Angela Agrusa, one of Cosby's lawyers.

 

In a statement read aloud by one of Cosby's aides, his wife, Camille, who attended only a couple of hours of the trial, took aim at the prosecutors and the judge.

 

"How do I describe the district attorney? Heinously and exploitatively ambitious," Camille Cosby said in the statement. "How do I describe the judge? Overtly arrogant and collaborating with the district attorney."

 

The mistrial was a blow to the dozens of women who have said they were sexually assaulted by Cosby, including several who attended the trial wearing buttons that read "We Stand in Truth."

 

But Victoria Valentino, a former Playboy model who has accused Cosby of drugging and raping her decades ago, had a message for him: "You're not off the hook, buddy."

 

Constand did not speak to reporters, but her attorney, Dolores Troiani, said Constand was a "very spiritual person who believes everything happens for a reason."

 

Cosby has denied all of the women's claims, saying that any sexual encounters were consensual. He still faces several civil lawsuits from at least 10 accusers.

 

Cosby's starring role as beloved dad Heathcliff Huxtable in "The Cosby Show," along with years of family-friendly standup comedy routines, made him a household name. He became an in-demand product endorser, appearing in commercials for Jell-O, Coca-Cola and Ford.

 

He co-starred in the 1960s espionage show "I Spy," the first black performer to star in a weekly American TV dramatic series.

 

But his live performing career stalled in 2015, as multiple accusers began going public with their stories.

 

JURORS REVISTED TESTIMONY

 

In Norristown, Pennsylvania, the jury struggled for days to agree on which version of the night in question to believe: Constand's or Cosby's.

 

Constand, then 31, met the married Cosby 15 years ago through her job as an administrator with the women's basketball team at Temple University in Philadelphia, where Cosby was a trustee and the school's most renowned alumnus.

 

She testified that Cosby acted as a mentor before offering her unidentified pills one night that left her unable to stop his advances.

 

Cosby's defense lawyers, however, argued that Constand's account could not be trusted after they pointed to numerous discrepancies in her statements to police in 2005, when she first reported the alleged incident nearly a year later.

 

In more than a dozen notes to the judge, the jurors asked to revisit huge chunks of trial testimony, including Constand's account from the witness stand, her statements to police from 2005 and Cosby's sworn depositions taken in 2005 and 2006, when Constand filed a civil lawsuit against him.

Cosby chose not to testify at the trial.

 

By Thursday morning, after nearly 30 hours of discussions spanning three days, the jurors told O'Neill they were at a stalemate. The judge instructed them to keep working, but despite marathon 12-hour sessions, the jury said on Saturday it was at an impasse.

 

The trial drew intense media attention, with more than 100 credentials issued for print, online, television and radio reporters.

 

The case itself has followed a long path to prosecution. In 2005, prosecutors declined to charge Cosby based on Constand's account, and she filed a lawsuit that Cosby settled for an undisclosed sum.

 

His depositions in that case, however, were unsealed by a federal judge in 2015, revealing his admissions that he had given sedatives to young women in the 1970s and prompting prosecutors to reopen the case.

 

He was eventually charged in December 2015, just days before the statute of limitations was set to expire.

 

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-06-18

[Chou Anou]

https://www.vox.com/2017/6/17/15824444/i-believe-bill-cosby-jury-mistrial

[darksidedog]

I am somewhat surprised by this verdict, as I am sure many others will be. Unconscious people are not in a position to agree or decline to sex, so them not saying NO, is hardly consent. Having admitted he routinely gave women sedatives that put them in that position, I do not understand how the jury was not able to deliver a verdict. One hopes the next lot will be able to do so.

[stevenl]

27 minutes ago, darksidedog said:

I am somewhat surprised by this verdict, as I am sure many others will be. Unconscious people are not in a position to agree or decline to sex, so them not saying NO, is hardly consent. Having admitted he routinely gave women sedatives that put them in that position, I do not understand how the jury was not able to deliver a verdict. One hopes the next lot will be able to do so.

This case was not about general behaviour, but about one specific case. Really difficult to prove, more so after all this time.

[gk10002000]

This was all a wing and a prayer and a big money maker for lawyers. There literally is no prima facia evidence.  It is one person's, ok many person's testimony about separate events but none were ever at the same place and same time to corroborate any other plaintiff's claim. 

[YetAnother]

so he will get away with it ala O.J.Simpson

[sirineou]

I watched Crosby get out of his car to go to court , his lawyer hand him a cane, he takes the cake but in my opinion holds it wrong for a man who needs a cane and never once leans on it ,he just holds it, and I wonder, did he need a cane or was it a prop to garner sympathy? On his way in to court he hold hid lawyers arm in the way blind people hold the arm of a person that is leading them , was that real or acting?

I know I might have a devious mind, but that's what I honestly thought when I show him on TV.

IMO where there is smoke there is fire, and there sure is a lot smoke there,

[spidermike007]

"How do I describe the district attorney? Heinously and exploitatively ambitious," Camille Cosby said in the statement. "How do I describe the judge? Overtly arrogant and collaborating with the district attorney."

 

Yeah. That is why Cosby got off. Precisely. A conclusion of an absolute nitwit.

 

This is proof, that is you have enough money, you can buy your way out of most anything in the US. While other countries are very corrupt, and you can simply just buy off the judge or the prosecutor (closer to home here) the US maintains a very corrupt judicial system, in a sense that if you have enough money for a great legal team, you can create enough doubt and confusion on the part of the jury, and escape conviction in many cases. Not all. But many. Just think of OJ Simpson. Great example. 

[klauskunkel]

4 hours ago, rooster59 said:

"How do I describe the district attorney? Heinously and exploitatively ambitious," Camille Cosby said in the statement. "How do I describe the judge? Overtly arrogant and collaborating with the district attorney."

How do I describe Camille Cosby? A caring wife who knows which side of the bread is buttered.

Edited June 18, 2017 by klauskunkel

[Hayduke]

1 hour ago, spidermike007 said:

This is proof, that is you have enough money, you can buy your way out of most anything in the US. While other countries are very corrupt, and you can simply just buy off the judge or the prosecutor (closer to home here) the US maintains a very corrupt judicial system, in a sense that if you have enough money for a great legal team, you can create enough doubt and confusion on the part of the jury, and escape conviction in many cases. Not all. But many. Just think of OJ Simpson. Great example. 

This is a mistrial…not an acquittal. There's an important distinction between the two.

Edited June 18, 2017 by Hayduke

[Grubster]

The world knows he is a scum bag and he will live with that in or out of jail.

[Grouse]

American justice is the best that money can buy.

[thaibeachlovers]

9 hours ago, gk10002000 said:

This was all a wing and a prayer and a big money maker for lawyers. There literally is no prima facia evidence.  It is one person's, ok many person's testimony about separate events but none were ever at the same place and same time to corroborate any other plaintiff's claim. 

From the OP

She testified that Cosby acted as a mentor before offering her unidentified pills one night that left her unable to stop his advances.

So she took pills that she didn't know just because he gave them to her!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I find that hard to believe and I'm sure the jurors that said no didn't believe that either.

 

The entire premise of the prosecution is that Cosby had to drug women to have sex with them, but anyone in the real world knows that a big celebrity like Cosby has no problem finding women to drop their knickers for him. No need for drugs ergo consensual.

 

Modern history is full of women groupies regretting after the incident and falsely accusing the one they fancied of misdeeds.

[thaibeachlovers]

6 hours ago, Hayduke said:

This is a mistrial…not an acquittal. There's an important distinction between the two.

Yes, the lawyers can continue milking this for all they can get.

[thaibeachlovers]

10 hours ago, darksidedog said:

I am somewhat surprised by this verdict, as I am sure many others will be. Unconscious people are not in a position to agree or decline to sex, so them not saying NO, is hardly consent. Having admitted he routinely gave women sedatives that put them in that position, I do not understand how the jury was not able to deliver a verdict. One hopes the next lot will be able to do so.

http://www.news-medical.net/health/List-of-Sedatives.aspx

Sedatives encompass a wide variety of drugs with different mechanisms of action that can induce depression of the central nervous system (CNS).

 

Sedatives do not always induce unconsciousness.

Has there been evidence of what sort of sedatives he is accused of giving and of what strength?

Did he give them in food or drink?

From the OP, she took them willingly even though she didn't know what they were, REALLY?

 

I'm not at all surprised the jury could not agree, though I can guess which ones all agreed to convict.

[thaibeachlovers]

12 hours ago, rooster59 said:

She filed a lawsuit that Cosby settled for an undisclosed sum.

 

His depositions in that case, however, were unsealed by a federal judge in 2015,

Given that most such include a gagging order, does Cosby get his money back now?

[halloween]

34 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

From the OP

She testified that Cosby acted as a mentor before offering her unidentified pills one night that left her unable to stop his advances.

So she took pills that she didn't know just because he gave them to her!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I find that hard to believe and I'm sure the jurors that said no didn't believe that either.

 

The entire premise of the prosecution is that Cosby had to drug women to have sex with them, but anyone in the real world knows that a big celebrity like Cosby has no problem finding women to drop their knickers for him. No need for drugs ergo consensual.

 

Modern history is full of women groupies regretting after the incident and falsely accusing the one they fancied of misdeeds.

If you were to give a woman unidentified alcoholic drinks until she became unresponsive, and then had sexual intercourse with her, do you think you would be guilty of rape? Or would you claim innocence because she drank them when you gave them to her?

Is your opinion of women so low that you think every woman would have intercourse with a celebrity if given the opportunity?

[JHolmesJr]

Did they use the ol' 'if it doesnt fit you must acquit' defense?

[lovelomsak]

It took her a year to figure out if she was raped or not. i feel most women would know in minutes or at the most a few hours.

  Could it be she had done drugs and drank with other men before sex so was difficult to separate those excapades against the ones with Cosby. So she could convince others Cosby raped her other men  were simply party time.

Edited June 18, 2017 by lovelomsak

[Foozool]

I just see that group of lawyers working hard for more money, district attorneies need to become famous, bunch whores will receive rewards.

And still no one knows the truth. However the truth is not important but the great theater is. 

Edited June 18, 2017 by Foozool

[nasanews]

Arrogant dumb prosecutors want to prove their stupidity by retrial.

[GOLDBUGGY]

On 6/18/2017 at 7:52 AM, darksidedog said:

I am somewhat surprised by this verdict, as I am sure many others will be. Unconscious people are not in a position to agree or decline to sex, so them not saying NO, is hardly consent. Having admitted he routinely gave women sedatives that put them in that position, I do not understand how the jury was not able to deliver a verdict. One hopes the next lot will be able to do so.

I question what a young attractive female, who would have been in her early 30's then, doing at a married mans house, dressed to the 9's, and being there in the first place. If she wasn't expecting something in return for what she may do next.

 

Nobody forced her to go there, and dress up in a sexy dress! Even a 10 year old knows you don't conduct business in a married mans bedroom, unless this was your intent. 

 

I also question that if Cosby wasn't rich and famous, where all of his accusers could line up to suit him for millions later, if he lost this case, if he would have ever been charged in the first place, and on the last days before this case expired. 

 

Nobody is above the law and everyone should be treated the same and in the same manner. But this also includeds rich and famous people to. 

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎6‎/‎18‎/‎2017 at 7:17 PM, halloween said:

If you were to give a woman unidentified alcoholic drinks until she became unresponsive, and then had sexual intercourse with her, do you think you would be guilty of rape? Or would you claim innocence because she drank them when you gave them to her?

Is your opinion of women so low that you think every woman would have intercourse with a celebrity if given the opportunity?

You don't seem to have read what I wrote very carefully. My point was that Cosby wouldn't need to drug women to have sex with them- they are called groupies and all celebrities have them.

As for women drinking alcoholic drinks till they become unresponsive, which is off topic and not what the court case was about, that apparently goes on all the time, but because there is no money tree for the ordinary bloke involved it never becomes a media circus.

To answer your question, if a woman drinks till she is unresponsive she is a damn fool given what men are like, but it would not be a defense against a complaint of rape. Of course it would NOT count as consent in any sense of the word.

I don't think ALL women would have intercourse with a celebrity if given an opportunity, but I don't think any celebrity has a problem finding the ones that will. Women that won't, don't go on "dates" with them, or to their rooms, and they are definitely not throwing their knickers at them on stage.

It is always possible that he is a psycho that prefers drugged women, but I don't think the prosecution brought any psychiatrists into the case. Tell me if I'm wrong.

IMO, if a woman thinks she has been raped, the time to say something is then, not years later when the scent of money is in the air.

I've seen too many women using sex as a weapon against men to take their stories at face value.

[GOLDBUGGY]

On 6/18/2017 at 7:17 PM, halloween said:

If you were to give a woman unidentified alcoholic drinks until she became unresponsive, and then had sexual intercourse with her, do you think you would be guilty of rape? Or would you claim innocence because she drank them when you gave them to her?

Is your opinion of women so low that you think every woman would have intercourse with a celebrity if given the opportunity?

I think you are missing the whole and very important point here. 

 

Had this woman showed up at Cosby's Home with her Boyfriend. and was met by Cosby and His Wife, and later drugged and woke up to find Cosby fondling her is his bedroom, while her Boyfriend and his wife were downstairs thinking he went up to check on her, then that this would have been a totally different story. Especially if she reported this to the Police right away, and like many women would do. But this is not what happened at all here. 

 

This woman showed up at Cosby House alone, and dressed in a sexy dress, knowing full well his wife was not at home and out of town. We do know that she accepted alcoholic drinks with him in the privacy of his home, although these drugs has not been determinded she took freely yet, and may never be proven one way, or the other. 

 

Come On Man! If you were rich and famous and a younger woman did that with you, wouldn't you expect that on this night you were going to get more than a kiss on the cheek later, Good Night? Of course you would! 

 

No! Not every woman would sleep with a celeberty just because of who his is, and how he may help forward her career. But many would.

 

There is many up-and-coming actresses who would gladly do that for 30 minutes of time with a favous star like Crosby. It is no secret today that many actresses got there start in show business by doing there audition on the couch or sofa of some famous Director, or Producer, or Actor.

 

There is no doubt that this woman was probbly not in her full senses as the night wore on, and like a woman you have been drinking with all night long. But the key to this case is that she surely was in her full senses before she got to this married mans house knowing his wife wasn't home,  and when she was not under any threat or forced to go there.   

[Jingthing]

This is ridiculous.

We all know he's totally guilty.

The USA justice system is a farce.

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2017/06/18/the_cosby_case_is_another_example_of_credibility_discounting_in_sexual_assault.html

[GOLDBUGGY]

On 6/18/2017 at 11:35 PM, nasanews said:

Arrogant dumb prosecutors want to prove their stupidity by retrial.

I agree a re-trial is stupid, and a waste of Tax Payers Money, but a Prosecutors who does this is not really that stupid for doing this. By taking a High Profile Person to trial, like Crosby, they are also making a name for themselves. 

 

For example Rudy Giuliani made a house hold name for himself first as United States Attorney (Chief Prosecutor) in New York state by attacking high profile cases, including Drug Trafficers, the Mafia, and Corruption Corporate Financiers, like in the Michael Milken Case.  This position starts out as a 4 year term, but can last longer as in Rudy Giuliani's term.

 

Taking on these High Profile Cases attracted a lot of attention to himself. He of course later became the Mayor of New York City and holding this position for the maximum Term. which is 8 years. He then ran for US Senate in 2000 but had to pull out early due to health reasons. But in 2008 he planned to run for the President of the United States, which is the highest office one can hold. 

 

So for a guy who started out as a Prosecutor, he has done quite well for himself and since then taking on High Profile Cases to Court. Because there is some personal gain for doing this. How much attention would this case have if it was you going to court and not Cosby?  So in my view, in some ways this is unfare. 

[GOLDBUGGY]

15 hours ago, Jingthing said:

This is ridiculous.

We all know he's totally guilty.

The USA justice system is a farce.

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2017/06/18/the_cosby_case_is_another_example_of_credibility_discounting_in_sexual_assault.html

Guilty based on what Evidence? 

 

The days when a Balck Man was taken to trial and hung for having sex with a White Woman, based soley on her say so, are thankfully long gone. Or at least I hope so! But in your case I am not so sure. 

[Jingthing]

Guilty based on what Evidence? 
 
The days when a Balck Man was taken to trial and hung for having sex with a White Woman, based soley on her say so, are thankfully long gone. Or at least I hope so! But in your case I am not so sure. 

Sleazy insinuation. The only reason they didn't convict is because they were not allowed to show more than one victim. That would have shown the pattern. I don't believe anyone including his wife actually believes he isn't guilty.

[GOLDBUGGY]

19 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You don't seem to have read what I wrote very carefully. My point was that Cosby wouldn't need to drug women to have sex with them- they are called groupies and all celebrities have them.

As for women drinking alcoholic drinks till they become unresponsive, which is off topic and not what the court case was about, that apparently goes on all the time, but because there is no money tree for the ordinary bloke involved it never becomes a media circus.

To answer your question, if a woman drinks till she is unresponsive she is a damn fool given what men are like, but it would not be a defense against a complaint of rape. Of course it would NOT count as consent in any sense of the word.

I don't think ALL women would have intercourse with a celebrity if given an opportunity, but I don't think any celebrity has a problem finding the ones that will. Women that won't, don't go on "dates" with them, or to their rooms, and they are definitely not throwing their knickers at them on stage.

It is always possible that he is a psycho that prefers drugged women, but I don't think the prosecution brought any psychiatrists into the case. Tell me if I'm wrong.

IMO, if a woman thinks she has been raped, the time to say something is then, not years later when the scent of money is in the air.

I've seen too many women using sex as a weapon against men to take their stories at face value.

I agree with a lot of points you made and you brought some very good points to the table. I am just not so sure that if a man prefers to have sex with a drugged woman, that this makes him a phycho?

 

I think we both would agree that what 2 "Consenting Adults" do in the privacy of there own bedroom is none of our business. I understand that some women likes to be tied up and rendered helpless to the man advances, and vice vera. It ain't My Bag, but with the right woman, and the only way I can, who knows for sure? But if this was there preference then I personally wouldn't call them both phycho. Strange Maybe? Different, for sure! But not phycho. 

 

I think though that the key words here are "Consenting Adults". What are they? Were is this fine line they must cross to be considered consenting, or not consenting? Does a womans actions and words where at first says to continue all the way, but midway through the act she changes her mind, has she given her consent, or not? A woman you met at a party or bar, where you share alcoholic drinks together, and later both end up in bed willingly, have you got her consent, or not. If so how could you, if in her frame of mind at the time, she was not able to give it? If after 3 drinks she can't legally drive a car, is this the limit on her to be able to even give consent?

 

So I think when you are forced to determine consent or not consent, you also have to look at the actions of this person prior to this event happening. In this case her going to a married mans home dressed in what was descrbed as a sexy dress, knowing his wfe was not home and sharing alcoholic drinks with him. Her continung to call him long after this event. Her not reporting this to the police right away. Her already suing Crosby in Court knowing that he would sooner her her a few hundred thousand dollars to shut up and not drag his name in the mud, then fight her over soom silly thing. Like a Married Man having sex with a younger woman, and making this public news. 

 

In my view, this should have never even got to court, and it probably would never would had, if Cosby wasn't so rich and famous. Where perhaps some Judge (who I think in the USA has to be re-elected every 4 years or so) or Prosector (who can be let go after 4 years) can make a name for himself.    

[GOLDBUGGY]

8 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Sleazy insinuation. The only reason they didn't convict is because they were not allowed to show more than one victim. That would have shown the pattern. I don't believe anyone including his wife actually believes he isn't guilty.

I wonder how many women these Rock Stars slept with in there life time. If it is one hundred or more? But does this make that illegal, and they should be sued and locked up for the rest of there life for that high number?

 

Why not apply this rule of yours to yourself, and say you should spend 10 years in jail for all the women you slept with in your life time. Aren't we only suppose to have just one, and the woman or man we married?

 

You never mentioned why they were not allowed to show more than one Accussor? She has not been given the status of victom yet, in a court of law, becaue this hasn't been proved. In case you don't know, let me tell you why.  

 

It is because the Statue of Limitations for this Law ran out, which I think last up to 10 or 12 years. So in 12 years not one of these so called Victims (as you describe them) came forward to the Police and try to lay any charges against Cosby. Don't you think this is very strange?  That from all these women not even one stepped forward, until now, to lay any charges against Crosby? 

 

So I ask why? Is Crosby some King Pin in the Mafia that could bump them off the map, if they dared to open there mouth and say something against him? Even if it was true? I don't think so! Did Cosby ever make any kind of threat on them or there family or life if they did say something against him in those 12 years? No! I don't think so, as none of them claimed this either.  

 

So what is it then? Could it just be that none of them came forward and reported him to the police as they felt that Crosby didn't commit any crime? That they all willingly agreed to meet Crosby in the privacy of his home when his wife was away, or hotel room. and share alcoholic drinks with him, and maybe even drugs. That they felt no crime was committed as they Consented? 

 

But why come forward now, and long after this so called crime was committed and they know they can't charge him for it anymore? Could it be that his present accusor took Crosby to Civil Court recently, and suite him for big money, as there is no statue of limitations on Civil Suites their. That to there big surprised Crosby decide to settle out of court so his name won't be dragged in the Mud, and this woman now got a few hundred thousand dollars or more (as this was never disclosed) and now they saw a change to do this to. That they to could find some lawyer now, after the first case was won and settled, who would work for them on Pro Bono basis, so it won't cost them any money to do this either? All like Pigs lining up to the trough to feast?

 

I don't know about you, but any woman who felt she was raped, but doesn't try to lay any charges after 12 years or tell anyone she was raped, should not even be listen to now, unless she was a minor at that time. Any woman who accuses a man of rape but doesn't try to lay any charges latter, but instead keeps up a friendly relationship with him by telephone, was not raped, and her case should be thrown out of course.