PHILADELPHIA (KYW Newsradio) — Bill Cosby woke up Thursday morning in his Elkins Park home for the first time in nearly three years. He is free after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated his sexual assault conviction.
Lawyers and legal scholars are poring over the court’s decision, which is based on a prosecutorial misstep regarding Cosby’s Fifth Amendment rights, not guilt or innocence. The case will likely be the topic of legal discussion for decades to come.
Stew Ryan, formerly with the Montgomery County District Attorney’s Office, was on the prosecution team that convicted Cosby. His first thought after the court overturned Cosby’s conviction was Andrea Constand, as he said such rulings can re-traumatize victims.
However, he noted that the ruling does not address the facts of the case or the verdict.
“They didn’t detract from the verdict itself that the jury ultimately rendered in this case, which proved the truth of what Andrea was saying,” said Ryan, who is now in private practice at Laffey, Bucci and Kent.
“The fact that she was heard by the jury and the jury believed her is significant to me and is going to remain important, no matter what happens.”
Related
Temple University law professor Jules Epstein agrees. He said the court’s ruling “in no way exonerates him.”
“This is not about immunity,” he said. “This is about a promise or an apparent promise and people trusting it and relying on it.”
The state Supreme Court tossed Cosby’s conviction based on then-District Attorney Bruce Castor’s public announcement in 2005 that he would not file charges. The court said Cosby gave a deposition under the assumption he couldn’t invoke Fifth Amendment rights, avoiding self-incrimination during a civil deposition.
That deposition was unsealed and provided some of the foundation for the charges filed against Cosby. As a result, the court said the trial shouldn’t have happened to begin with.
Epstein was surprised the ruling focused on the agreement from a former prosecutor rather than arguments from Cosby’s lawyers that other accusers should not have been allowed to testify at trial.
Castor’s agreement not to prosecute was the topic of a multi-day hearing after charges were filed against Cosby in 2016. The trial judge ruled at the time that there wasn’t sufficient evidence that an agreement was ever presented, calling Castor’s credibility into question.
Related
Epstein said the state Supreme Court isn’t thumbing its nose at the trial judge’s fact-finding decision. Instead, it points to Castor’s press release that said no charges will be filed. The court said that document was binding enough to make its decision.
Epstein said that is in line with a long-standing principle.
“When prosecutors make a promise or generate an expectation, they have to live up to it,” he said.
Epstein added this ruling is narrow and the case is unique. The odds of something similar happening again are very low.
CBS News legal analyst Laurie Levinson doesn’t think this will affect other cases.
“Harvey Weinstein isn’t gonna get any benefit from this case because no prosecutor promised him that he wouldn’t be prosecuted,” she explained. “If prosecutors make a promise, they have to stick by that promise. And even if it was their predecessor who made the promise, the person who comes in next has to abide by it. It’s all one office.”
In a statement, Constand and her legal team said they are not only disappointed but concerned about how this decision could impact other survivors of sexual assault.
“[The decision] may discourage those who seek justice for sexual assault in the criminal justice system from reporting or participating in the prosecution of the assailant or may force a victim to choose between filing either a criminal or civil action,” the statement said. “We urge all victims to have their voices heard.”