Biases In The Cosby Case Steven T. O Neil

Sarah Hitchcock

After 52 hours of deliberation, The Cosby case was declared a mistrial by judge Steven T. O’Neil (Puente, M. 2017). The case took course over 6 days at Montgomery Country Courthouse in Norristown, Pa. The jury consisted of 7 men and 5 women; 4 white women, 6 white men, 1 black man, and 1 black woman. Bill Cosby was on trial for aggravated and indecent assault, with accusations coming from Andrea Constand. Constand originally told the police in 2005, a year after the incident, but she declined to press charges due to insufficient evidence and accepted an undisclosed amount of money in a civil suit (Schallhorn, 2017). In 2014, dozens of women began accusing him of the same charge (Schallhorn, 2017).. In July 2015, a judge opened

The possible biases in jury decision-making will be discussed, including those related to having a celebrity on trial. In addition, this paper will examine the taboo nature of sexual assault cases, the problems that often arise in such cases, and the psychological toll on the victim. One issue with this case is the prosecution’s lack forensic evidence. In a “he said, she said” case that lacks the evidence that jurors expect in order to make their decision, it comes down to whether they believe the defendant or the prosecution. When DNA is not available, other types of physical evidence are examined (LaPorte, G., Nguyen, M., Schwarting, D., Scott, F., Waltke, H., Weiss, D., 2017). However, this particular case involves a claim of consensual sex by the defendant. This means that because he admitted to having sexual relations with the plaintiff, physical evidence or DNA would not have made a difference for the plaintiff, even if it was available. The prosecution had Cosby’s deposition from 2005, a testimony of the plaintiff describing the incident, and a witness who testified her own alleged unreported sexual assault by Cosby (http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-bill-cosby-quaalude-deposition-excerpts-20160523-snap-story.html). While the testimony may have been powerful, it was not powerful enough to convince the jury. Rape cases are difficult because they often lack forensic and physical evidence, and it is not uncommon for there to be a great deal of time passed between the incident and report. In this case, there was a year between the incident and report. Over a decade later, the case went to trial. Pennsylvania’s statute of limitation allows 13 years between the incident and report 9http://statelaws.findlaw.com/pennsylvania-law/pennsylvania-rape-laws.html). Therefore, Constand appears to be the only women among the accusers who is able or willing to come to trial. In