More stories

  • in

    ‘Overwhelmed and Devastated’: Cosby’s Accusers on Decision to Free Him

    Many of the women who accused Bill Cosby of sexual misconduct, and worse, said they were disheartened by the ruling of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.Even before the #MeToo movement transformed the way the country, and the world, viewed sexual misconduct and empowered scores of women to speak out, dozens had already come forward with accusations against Bill Cosby.They were of all ages and from all walks of life — aspiring actors, models and, in one important case, a Temple University employee. Some were young adults. Others were older women with accounts of abuse that stretched back decades.But they all cheered when Mr. Cosby was found guilty in 2018 of assaulting a woman years earlier, hailing the decision as long-awaited vindication and evidence that famous and influential men could be held accountable.That sense of relief and justice came crashing down Wednesday as the Pennsylvania Supreme Court overturned his conviction.Andrea Constand, who brought the charges against Mr. Cosby that had led to his conviction, called the ruling “disappointing” and said she worried it could discourage other women from pursuing prosecutions in cases of sexual assault.“We urge all victims,” Ms. Constand said in a statement made jointly with her lawyers, “to have their voices heard.”Patricia Steuer, 65, who accused Mr. Cosby of drugging and assaulting her in 1978 and 1980, said that she had been preparing herself for the possibility that Mr. Cosby’s conviction would be overturned but was still “a little stunned” by the court’s ruling.“I’m feeling sad because this is absolutely a perceived loss on my part,” Ms. Steuer said. “I’m wondering what the 43-year ordeal that I went through was supposed to be about.”But she also said she was “consoled by the fact that I believe we did the only thing that we could, which is to come forward and tell the truth.”Gloria Allred, a lawyer who represented a number of women who accused Mr. Cosby of abuse, with several of them at a news conference in 2015.Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images North AmericaWith the ruling, Mr. Cosby “may claim that he’s been vindicated or persecuted or that he’s innocent, but I know that’s not true, and the other women who came forward also know that that’s not true,” Ms. Steuer said.Victoria Valentino, another of Mr. Cosby’s accusers, told ABC News that “my stomach is lurching” and that she was “deeply distressed” by what she said was “the injustice of the whole thing.”In a brief telephone interview on Wednesday, she said only that she was “overwhelmed and devastated.”Ms. Steuer worried about what the ruling meant for the #MeToo movement. “This is going to have ramifications for any woman who has ever come forward about a man who did this to them or any person who is thinking about coming forward,” she said.Eden Tirl, another of Mr. Cosby’s accusers, told Kate Snow of NBC News that the resolution of the case must now also become part of the story of the #MeToo movement and its narrative.“From the very beginning, the rigid constructs of the statute of limitations did not provide protection or a pathway for justice for the women that came out against Cosby,” she wrote to Ms. Snow via text message. “The outdated laws are so clearly in place, protecting men in these cases, more often than not.”“I am completely out of breath,” she added.In a statement, the National Organization for Women denounced Mr. Cosby’s release, saying that “the judicial system in America” had “failed survivors again.”Tina Tchen, the head of Time’s Up, the advocacy organization founded by powerful women in Hollywood, called the court decision “devastating,” but promised that the bravery and resolve showed by the women who spoke out about Mr. Cosby would not be “in vain.”And in her own statement, Gloria Allred, the lawyer for dozens of Mr. Cosby’s accusers, said her heart went out to “those who bravely testified in both of his criminal cases.”“Despite the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision, this was an important fight for justice and even though the court overturned the conviction on technical grounds, it did not vindicate Bill Cosby’s conduct and should not be interpreted as a statement or a finding that he did not engage in the acts of which he has been accused,” Ms. Allred said. More

  • in

    Agreement with Bruce Castor, Trump Attorney, Is At the Heart of Bill Cosby's Release

    The Pennsylvania Supreme Court freed the actor Bill Cosby from prison based largely on a past agreement with a former Pennsylvania prosecutor best known for defending President Donald J. Trump during his February impeachment trial. In a 79-page opinion, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court wrote that a “non-prosecution agreement” that had been struck with Bruce L. Castor Jr. meant that Bill Cosby should not have been charged in the case for which he was convicted and sentenced in 2018. The court also barred a retrial.The agreement came about when, in 2005, Mr. Cosby was investigated in the case of Andrea Constand, and Mr. Castor, a former district attorney of Montgomery County, gave Mr. Cosby his assurance that he would not be charged in the case.Mr. Castor testified that while there was insufficient evidence to bring a criminal prosecution, he had given Mr. Cosby the assurance to encourage him to testify in a subsequent civil case brought by Ms. Constand.In that testimony, Mr. Cosby acknowledged giving quaaludes to women he was pursuing for sex — evidence that played a key part in his trial after Mr. Castor’s successors reopened the case and charged Mr. Cosby in December 2015.“In light of these circumstances, the subsequent decision by successor D. A.s to prosecute Cosby violated Cosby’s due process rights,” the appeals ruling said. More

  • in

    Bill Cosby’s Conviction Is Overturned: Read the Court’s Opinion

    unconditional promise of non-prosecution, and when the defendant relies upon that

    guarantee to the detriment of his constitutional right not to testify, the principle of

    fundamental fairness that undergirds due process of law in our criminal justice system

    demands that the promise be enforced.

    explained in Commonwealth v. Clancy, 192 A.3d 44 (Pa. 2018), prosecutors inhabit three

    distinct and equally critical roles: they are officers of the court, advocates for victims, and

    administrators of justice. Id. at 52. As the Commonwealth’s representatives, prosecutors

    are duty-bound to pursue “equal and impartial justice,” Appeal of Nicely, 18 A. 737, 738

    (Pa. 1889), and “to serve the public interest.” Clancy, 192 A.3d 52. Their obligation is

    “not merely to convict,” but rather to “seek justice within the bounds of the law.”

    Commonwealth v. Starks, 387 A.2d 829, 831 (Pa. 1978).

    For the reasons detailed below, we hold that, when a prosecutor makes an

    Prosecutors are more than mere participants in our criminal justice system. As we

    As an “administrator of justice,” the prosecutor has the power to decide whether to initiate formal criminal proceedings, to select those criminal charges which will be filed against the accused, to negotiate plea bargains, to withdraw charges where appropriate, and, ultimately, to prosecute or dismiss charges at trial. See, e.g., 16 P.S. § 1402(a) (“The district attorney shall sign all bills of indictment and conduct in court all criminal and other prosecutions . . . .”); Pa.R.Crim.P. 507 (establishing the prosecutor’s power to require that police officers seek approval from the district attorney prior to filing criminal complaints); Pa.R.Crim.P. 585 (power to move for nolle prosequi); see also ABA Standards §§ 3-4.2, 3-4.4. The extent of the powers enjoyed by the prosecutor was discussed most eloquently by United States Attorney General (and later Supreme Court Justice) Robert H. Jackson. In his historic address to the nation’s United States Attorneys, gathered in 1940 at the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., Jackson observed that “[t]he prosecutor has more control over life, liberty, and reputation than any other person in America. His discretion is tremendous.” Robert H. Jackson, The Federal Prosecutor, 31 AM. INST. CRIM. L. & CRIMINOLOGY 3, 3 (1940). In fact, the prosecutor is afforded such great deference that this Court and the Supreme Court of the United States seldom interfere with a prosecutor’s charging decision. See, e.g., United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 693 (1974) (noting that “the Executive Branch has exclusive authority and absolute discretion to decide whether

    [J-100-2020] – 52 More

  • in

    A Kevin Spacey Accuser Tried to Sue Anonymously. A Judge Said No.

    As sexual assault cases proliferate, judges must weigh accusers’ requests for anonymity against the tradition of open courts and fairness toward defendants.The man said he was 14 years old when he was sexually assaulted by the actor Kevin Spacey in the early 1980s. Last year he filed a lawsuit against Mr. Spacey in which he sought to maintain anonymity, identifying himself in court papers only as “C.D.”Earlier this year the judge in the case, which is being heard in the Southern District in New York, ordered the man’s lawyers to identify him privately to Mr. Spacey’s lawyers. And this month the judge, Lewis A. Kaplan, went further: he ruled that C.D. would have to identify himself publicly if he wanted to continue on to trial.The man’s lawyers responded Thursday that he would not, writing that the “sudden unwanted attention that revelation of his identity will cause is simply too much for him to bear.” They said in a letter to the court that they expect him to be removed from the case — which involves another plaintiff, who is using his real name — but suggested that they plan to pursue an appeal.In the #MeToo era, as more people have been turning to civil courts with accounts of sexual assault, judges are increasingly being asked to weigh the strong desire of many accusers to maintain their anonymity against the presumption of openness in the court system and the ability of the accused to defend themselves.“It’s the idea of balancing an open court system with the idea of protecting someone’s right to seek relief,” said Jayne S. Ressler, an associate professor of law at Brooklyn Law School.While anonymity has long been allowed under certain limited circumstances if it protects an accuser from harassment or other harm, courts tend to weigh it against the general principle that complaints must name both the defendant and accuser.The issue tends to come down to whether the benefits of anonymity, and of allowing a victim to come forward freely, outweigh the public’s interest in being able to scrutinize what is happening in the courts and the defendant’s ability to mount an effective defense.People who work to combat sexual violence warn that requiring people to use their own names could discourage some victims from seeking justice.“The risk of being publicly identified is a huge deterrent to coming forward for many survivors of sexual violence,” said Erinn Robinson, a spokeswoman for RAINN, the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network. “Decisions in these cases should always be made with a trauma-informed and victim-centered understanding of the impact this can have on survivors’ healing.”Harvey Weinstein arrives at State Supreme Court in Manhattan in February 2020.Desiree Rios for The New York TimesBut lawyers for the accused said that it is difficult to mount a defense against people who file cases anonymously, or using pseudonyms. “An increasing amount of lawsuits will attempt to be filed under a pseudonym, and that’s concerning because the justice system in our country has as its fabric an open court system and a level playing field,” said Imran H. Ansari, a lawyer who represents Harvey Weinstein.It is not uncommon these days for accusers to bring sexual assault cases anonymously and then, if they fail to negotiate settlements out of court, to be ordered by judges to come forward in their own name before taking their claims to trial, legal experts said.Last month, state court judges in Texas said that most of the 22 women who had sued Deshaun Watson, the Houston Texans star quarterback, had to identify themselves, even after they said they feared intimidation efforts.A judge in New York federal court last September denied a woman’s request to sue Mr. Weinstein anonymously. (The case has since been voluntarily withdrawn.)Professor Ressler said that though the principle of the open court still dominated many decisions, she had detected an uptick in sympathy from courts toward sexual assault plaintiffs suing anonymously.“It appears that some courts are less reluctant to allow anonymity, let’s put it like that,” she said. “Most judges do tend to rule against anonymity, but not all.”She pointed to a 2018 case in New York Supreme Court where a trial judge allowed a number of plaintiffs to proceed anonymously against a doctor, and a Massachusetts Superior Court case in 2019 when a court imposed anonymity on a plaintiff, who was a student.One of Mr. Spacey’s other accusers, a massage therapist who had accused Mr. Spacey of groping and trying to kiss him before offering him oral sex during a massage, was permitted by a federal judge in California to file a lawsuit under a pseudonym, although that case was dismissed after the plaintiff died unexpectedly ahead of the trial.Experts say that in the #MeToo era, some courts are becoming more understanding of the high costs sexual assault victims pay personally when they come forward publicly.There is also more acknowledgment that in the modern hyper-connected society, when information spreads widely and quickly online and remains easily searchable for years, there is less chance of privacy once a name becomes public.“There is a sense that your name can live on in perpetuity connected with something terrible, so you have to have a chance without your name being associated with it,” said Andrew Miltenberg, a lawyer who has represented men accused of sexual assault.Even so, Mr. Miltenberg said, eventually, “A judge tends to say, ‘Yes, you can proceed like that but know that if we end up in front of a jury, think very hard, because I am going to open the court.’”Mr. Spacey, 61, has faced a series of sexual misconduct allegations in recent years.In 2018, he was charged with sexual assault in Nantucket, Mass., after an 18-year-old man accused him of fondling him in a restaurant two years earlier. But prosecutors there dropped the case after the accuser invoked the Fifth Amendment and refused to continue testifying after Mr. Spacey’s lawyer warned that he could be charged with a felony if he had deleted evidence from his cellphone.In the most recent case, the plaintiff, identified as “C.D.,” claimed that he met Mr. Spacey as a teenager in an acting class in Westchester County in the early 1980s.According to the lawsuit, Mr. Spacey invited the student to his apartment when they met again a few years later and he was still a minor, and “engaged in sexual acts” with him on multiple different occasions. In their final encounter, Mr. Spacey assaulted the teenager despite his resisting and saying “no,” the lawsuit said.In an interview with BuzzFeed News in 2017, the actor Anthony Rapp accused Mr. Spacey of making an inappropriate sexual advance toward Mr. Rapp when he was 14.Evan Agostini/Invision, via Associated PressC.D. filed the lawsuit with another accuser, Anthony Rapp, who first made accusations against Mr. Spacey in 2017. Mr. Spacey has denied C.D.’s and Mr. Rapp’s sexual misconduct accusations.In court papers, lawyers for C.D. argued that he would suffer psychological trauma if his name became public.“The thought of my name being circulated in the media and on the internet and of people contacting me as a victim of Kevin Spacey terrifies me,” C.D. wrote in court papers.But the case raised questions about the difficulty of defending a sexual assault case when the accuser insists on remaining anonymous.Even after the court had ruled that Mr. Spacey’s lawyers should privately be told C.D.’s real name, they argued that their ability to conduct discovery and investigate C.D.’s claims would be hampered if he could maintain his anonymity toward the public. They would be unable to disclose his name to witnesses, they noted, while potential witnesses who could have relevant information might not come forward if his real name was not publicized.Mr. Spacey’s “ability to investigate and conduct discovery of CD’s claims and prepare for trial would be severely inhibited,” his lawyers wrote in legal documents.Judge Kaplan agreed.He conceded that privacy was diminished by the internet and that the case involved sensitive and personal issues, both points arguing for anonymity.However, in ruling for shedding anonymity, the judge emphasized that C.D. himself had spoken to people about Mr. Spacey as far back at the 1990s, and had given an anonymous interview about Mr. Spacey to Vulture in 2017. He also noted that C.D. is no longer a child.“Though CD brings allegations relating to alleged sexual abuse as a minor, he now is an adult in his 50s who has chosen to level serious charges against a defendant in the public eye,” Judge Kaplan wrote. “Fairness requires that he be prepared to stand behind his charges publicly.”Both a lawyer for C.D., Peter J. Saghir, and for Spacey, Chase A. Scolnick, declined to comment.Experts said criminal cases offer greater anonymity protection to sexual assault victims than civil cases. In civil claims, the two parties often try to negotiate a settlement, and in practice few cases in fact proceed to trial. A judge’s ruling to lift anonymity sometimes acts as a catalyst to force a settlement, legal experts said.Lawyers for plaintiffs say they urge their clients to be realistic when it comes to seeking anonymity.“When you represent these survivors you have to tell them, there is no guarantee you are going to be able to proceed anonymously,” said John C. Clune, a lawyer who represented a plaintiff who had to refile a case against Kobe Bryant under her real name in a 2004 civil case. “They know they have a fighting chance, but they are also prepared mentally in case they lose.” More

  • in

    Bill Cosby Case: Judges Review Decision to Allow Multiple Accusers

    #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }What to WatchBest Movies on NetflixBest of Disney PlusClassic Holiday MoviesHoliday TVBest Netflix DocumentariesAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyBill Cosby Case: Judges Review Decision to Allow Multiple AccusersSeveral Pennsylvania Supreme Court justices hearing Cosby’s appeal of his sexual assault conviction expressed concern that five additional women had been allowed to testify at his 2018 trial.Bill Cosby entering court during his 2018 trial on sexual assault charges. An appeal of his conviction in that case was heard Tuesday by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.Credit…Matt Slocum/Associated PressBy More