Prosecutors announced Monday that they have asked the Supreme Court to review the ruling that overturned Bill Cosby’s 2018 sexual assault conviction, arguing that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s June decision sets a dangerous precedent with “far-reaching negative consequences.”
via: Revolt
Cosby served nearly three years in jail in connection to his conviction in the 2004 case of Andrea Constand, a student who accused him of drugging and assaulting her in his home. In June, however, the Supreme Court dropped all charges against the comic, citing his previous agreement with ex-prosecutor Bruce Castor.
According to multiple news outlets, Cosby admitted he drugged women before sexual encounters with an understanding that Castor would not prosecute him in the case.
Though Castor stayed true to his word and ruled that there wasn’t enough evidence to charge the comedian in the case, his successor used Cosby’s deposition to charge him with three Class II felony charges of aggravated indecent assault, convict him on all three counts and sentence him to 3 to 10 years in prison. The actor’s conviction was overturned in June, citing his agreement with the former prosecutor.
Per the Associated Press, the only evidence of Castor’s arrangement was a 2005 press release, which prosecutors say should not be treated as a grant of immunity. They are questioning whether there was really a deal between Castor and Cosby.
“This decision as it stands will have far-reaching negative consequences beyond Montgomery County and Pennsylvania,” Steele wrote in the petition. “The U.S. Supreme Court can right what we believe is a grievous wrong.”
Cosby’s spokesperson, Andrew Wyatt, believes the appeal is a “pathetic last-ditch effort that will not prevail.”
“The Montgomery County D.A. asks the U.S. Supreme Court to throw the Constitution out the window … to satisfy the #metoo mob,” he said. “There is no merit to the DA’s request …The (high court) does not typically interfere with the rulings of a state’s high court unless it conflicts with the decisions of other state high courts or our federal court of appeals.”
We will keep you updated if anything develops further with this story.
