This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/16/arts/television/bill-cosby-trial-day-10.html

The article has changed 11 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 8 Version 9
Bill Cosby Trial Judge: Let the Split Jury Take Its Time Bill Cosby Jury Goes a Fifth Day Without a Verdict
(about 2 hours later)
• The jurors, in their fifth day of deliberations on Friday, are still at an impasse, but Judge Steven T. O’Neill expressed hope that they were coming to some consensus as to whether Bill Cosby drugged and sexually assaulted Andrea Constand. • The fifth day of deliberations in the Bill Cosby sexual assault trial ended Friday with the jury still at an impasse, but Judge Steven T. O’Neill expressed hope that the jurors were coming closer to consensus on whether the entertainer had drugged and sexually assaulted Andrea Constand.
• It’s unclear what the deadlock is about, but the jury asked the judge Friday morning to explain the standard of proof in a criminal trial. What does proving something “beyond a reasonable doubt” mean?• It’s unclear what the deadlock is about, but the jury asked the judge Friday morning to explain the standard of proof in a criminal trial. What does proving something “beyond a reasonable doubt” mean?
• The jurors also asked to be read sections of Mr. Cosby’s deposition from a 2005 lawsuit filed by Ms. Constand in which he discussed how he had obtained quaaludes in an effort to have sex with women, and also the testimony from Ms. Constand’s mother, Gianna.• The jurors also asked to be read sections of Mr. Cosby’s deposition from a 2005 lawsuit filed by Ms. Constand in which he discussed how he had obtained quaaludes in an effort to have sex with women, and also the testimony from Ms. Constand’s mother, Gianna.
• Judge O’Neill said he would let the jury deliberate as long as they wanted to. • Judge O’Neill said he would let the jury deliberate as long as they wanted to and he denied defense motions seeking a mistrial.
He said the prosecution does not have to prove its case beyond all doubt to a point of absolute certainty.He said the prosecution does not have to prove its case beyond all doubt to a point of absolute certainty.
A reasonable doubt, he said, is one that causes a juror to hesitate, but it must be real.A reasonable doubt, he said, is one that causes a juror to hesitate, but it must be real.
The standard jury instructions used by the Pennsylvania courts say, “To find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, you must be convinced of his guilt to the same degree you would be convinced about a matter of importance in your own life in which you would act with confidence and without restraint or hesitation.” The model jury instructions adopted by the federal Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which includes Pennsylvania, offers a lengthy definition that says, in part: “Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt or to a mathematical certainty. Possible doubts or doubts based on conjecture or speculation are not reasonable doubts.”The standard jury instructions used by the Pennsylvania courts say, “To find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, you must be convinced of his guilt to the same degree you would be convinced about a matter of importance in your own life in which you would act with confidence and without restraint or hesitation.” The model jury instructions adopted by the federal Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which includes Pennsylvania, offers a lengthy definition that says, in part: “Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt or to a mathematical certainty. Possible doubts or doubts based on conjecture or speculation are not reasonable doubts.”
The judge then reread Mr. Cosby’s own words from previous deposition testimony in which he discussed obtaining several prescriptions for quaaludes, ostensibly for his back, but he used them instead as a party drug with women in order to have sex.The judge then reread Mr. Cosby’s own words from previous deposition testimony in which he discussed obtaining several prescriptions for quaaludes, ostensibly for his back, but he used them instead as a party drug with women in order to have sex.
The jury had previously asked for other parts of the deposition testimony to be read, but this was the first time they had asked for his words about quaaludes. As the judge read the testimony, jury members paid close attention, looking at the screen where the words were projected.The jury had previously asked for other parts of the deposition testimony to be read, but this was the first time they had asked for his words about quaaludes. As the judge read the testimony, jury members paid close attention, looking at the screen where the words were projected.
Mr. Cosby sat in his chair at the front of the court, twisting his cane in his hands. Ms. Constand, her mother and her sister were also in court.Mr. Cosby sat in his chair at the front of the court, twisting his cane in his hands. Ms. Constand, her mother and her sister were also in court.
Judge O’Neill rejected another defense motion for a mistrial and punctured any notion that he was in any kind of rush.Judge O’Neill rejected another defense motion for a mistrial and punctured any notion that he was in any kind of rush.
“As long as the jury wants to deliberate,” he said, “I will let them.”“As long as the jury wants to deliberate,” he said, “I will let them.”
She had confronted Mr. Cosby in a phone call in which he apologized for his encounter with her daughter, offered to pay for therapy and schooling, but did not acknowledge any assault. The jurors also asked to review phone records that the defense had cited to show that Ms. Constand had continued contact with Mr. Cosby even after the evening in early 2004 when she says he drugged and assaulted her. Ms. Constand said many of the calls were associated with her need to keep in contact with Mr. Cosby because he was a trustee of Temple University, where she worked.She had confronted Mr. Cosby in a phone call in which he apologized for his encounter with her daughter, offered to pay for therapy and schooling, but did not acknowledge any assault. The jurors also asked to review phone records that the defense had cited to show that Ms. Constand had continued contact with Mr. Cosby even after the evening in early 2004 when she says he drugged and assaulted her. Ms. Constand said many of the calls were associated with her need to keep in contact with Mr. Cosby because he was a trustee of Temple University, where she worked.
Mr. Cosby’s lead lawyer, Brian J. McMonagle, pushed again for a mistrial because of the length of the deliberations. But Judge O’Neill, who seemed exasperated with the defense, said he could not intervene unless and until the jury reported again that it could not reach a verdict. And he said he had not heard anything from the jury about its progress since Thursday morning. He accused the Cosby team of spreading the “misperception that there is a time limit.”Mr. Cosby’s lead lawyer, Brian J. McMonagle, pushed again for a mistrial because of the length of the deliberations. But Judge O’Neill, who seemed exasperated with the defense, said he could not intervene unless and until the jury reported again that it could not reach a verdict. And he said he had not heard anything from the jury about its progress since Thursday morning. He accused the Cosby team of spreading the “misperception that there is a time limit.”
“Give me the law that your rhetoric fosters out there,” he said to Mr. McMonagle. “The judge’s obligation is to allow the jury to deliberate.”“Give me the law that your rhetoric fosters out there,” he said to Mr. McMonagle. “The judge’s obligation is to allow the jury to deliberate.”
The defense has said that the jury is basically replaying the entire trial with its repeat requests to hear evidence. The judge had agreed to all the jury’s requests to go back over things until Friday afternoon when he refused to let them review a section of Mrs. Constand’s testimony a second time. It concerned a phone conversation between Mrs. Constand and Mr. Cosby, where he gave his version of what had transpired on the night Andrea Constand says she was assaulted.The defense has said that the jury is basically replaying the entire trial with its repeat requests to hear evidence. The judge had agreed to all the jury’s requests to go back over things until Friday afternoon when he refused to let them review a section of Mrs. Constand’s testimony a second time. It concerned a phone conversation between Mrs. Constand and Mr. Cosby, where he gave his version of what had transpired on the night Andrea Constand says she was assaulted.
People in the courtroom are scrutinizing each juror closely for any sign of which way he or she might be leaning. “We will decide what tomorrow brings when tomorrow comes,” Judge O’Neill said as he released the jurors Friday night to return to their hotel.
Not everyone in the gallery can see all the jurors because of a large projector screen placed in front of them. Others get a cricked neck trying. Mr. Cosby made his way out past chanting fans and told reporters, “To my supporters, please don’t argue, just keep up the great support.”
An exchange of glances between jurors can be interpreted many ways by those in the courtroom looking for any hint of how the panel is leaning. There seemed to be a few knowing nods among jurors when testimony about the nature of the pills Ms. Constand took was reread. “That must mean it’s the issue that’s dividing them.” Or maybe not. The judge, before he left, called the deliberations “unprecedented.”
Was their race an issue? Maybe their age? Would an older woman be less sympathetic to the younger Ms. Constand, or more? The scowl of another female juror suggested she had to be a holdout, surely. But it’s a guessing game; no one really knows. It’s not clear whether he meant the length of the deliberations or the professionalism of the jurors, or both. Certainly there have been criminal cases outside of Norristown where deliberations extended past six days.
Nonetheless, the deliberations have been a long, exhausting process for all concerned. And they are not over.