How One Ruling in the Bill Cosby Case Changed the Outcome of the Second Trial

One evidentiary ruling had a huge impact.

How One Ruling in the Bill Cosby Case Changed the Outcome of the Second Trial

Recently, comedian Bill Cosby was convicted on three counts of sexual assault in Pennsylvania. Although Cosby has been accused of sexual assault by dozens of women, Pennsylvania is one of the few states that could prosecute him for the crime because its statute of limitations (the time limit to file charges) had not run. This was his second trial on the same charges; the first trial ended in a mistrial after the jury could not reach a verdict. However, in this case, the jury was able to come to a guilty verdict after relatively short deliberations. What was the difference?

One factor might be that we are simply living in different times. Cosby’s first trial happened before the #MeToo movement — the era of reckoning that started in fall 2017, when women (and to a lesser extent, men) spoke up about their experiences with sexual assault and harassment, and demanded change. This may have had an impact on how the jurors viewed the evidence.

However, according to a criminal defense attorney San Bernardino, CA, the bigger factor is likely a key ruling that the judge made in the second trial: to allow multiple women who Cosby allegedly sexually assaulted to testify. In the first trial, the judge only allowed one prior accuser to testify against him. In the second trial, the judge allowed five women to testify that Cosby had sexually assaulted them. As you can imagine, this made it much easier for the jury to conclude that Cosby had a pattern of sexually assaulting women — and was guilty in this case as well.

This probably seems unfair: if a person is on trial for a crime, he or she should only be facing evidence of that crime, and not evidence of other, uncharged crimes, right? How can Cosby defend himself against testimony from these other alleged victims when the trial wasn’t even about them? And how can we know that the jury convicted based on the evidence that he sexually assaulted the complaining witness in the case — not because they think he is a bad guy who may have sexually assaulted all of these other women?

While it does seem unfair, most states — including California — have an evidentiary rule that allows this type of testimony. In California, Evidence Rule 1108 allows testimony from other alleged victims of sexual assault. As a criminal defense attorney San Bernardino, CA can explain, the idea behind these rules is that if prosecutors were not allowed to introduce evidence from other victims, then defendants could simply claim that each alleged rape was a he said/she said situation — despite the fact that there is a broader pattern.

If you have been accused of sexual assault, there is a chance that the prosecutor will seek to introduce testimony from others who claim to have also been sexually assaulted by you. That is why it is vital to hire a skilled criminal defense attorney San Bernardino, CA. Your lawyer can make a strong argument to exclude this kind of evidence, including that introducing it would be too prejudicial to your case to allow you to have a fair trial.

Sexual assault cases are incredibly serious, and require the assistance of a seasoned criminal defense attorney San Bernardino, CA. If you have been charged with this crime or any other California criminal offense, contact the Chambers Law Firm today at 714-760-4088 or dchambers@clfca.com.

.
Call Us Today