Chelan Lasha
Lasha testified about 1986 incident with Cosby when she was 17.
She said he'd invited her to his room at the Las Vegas Hilton and told her he'd help her with her career.
Janice Baker Kinney
Testified about a 1982 incident with Cosby in Reno.
She said she was given pills, they played backgammon and she passed out then woke up the next day undressed, next to Cosby in bed
Janice Dickinson
Dickinson testified that Cosby assaulted her in 1982 in Lake Tahoe.
She said: 'His robe opened...he smelled like cigar and espresso and his body odor. Here was America’s Dad on top of me. A happily married man with five children, on top of me.' She was 27 at the time.
Lise-Lottw Lublin
She testified that Cosby gave her two drinks in his hotel room in Las Vegas in 1989. She said she remembers him stroking her hair but then she passed out.
Heidi Thomas
Thomas testified that she met Cosby in 1984 and that after taking one sip of wine he'd given her, she passed out.
She said she woke up in his bed in a hotel room in Reno and that she was drowsy for days afterwards.
At least 60 women have testified against Cosby in total either in civil lawsuits or interview
We still believe that no one is above the law-including those who are rich, famous and powerful,' he said.
Cosby's team however say the release sets a precedent for others who hope to be freed.
One of their arguments for his release was the five women other accusers who testified at the trial.
Five women told the jury about how Cosby had 'assaulted' them in the 1980s.
It had nothing to do with Constand's claims but the prosecution was allowed to introduce their testimony as evidence of Cosby's character.
They were there to demonstrate a pattern of behavior.
In their 79-page ruling, the PA Supreme Court does not address that issue.
They stayed well clear of it and instead focused only on Castor.
But Cosby's rep, Andrew Wyatt, said on Thursday morning the very fact it was under review brings hope to others, namely Harvey Weinstein.
Other 'bad act' witnesses were used at Weinstein's New York City trial to paint a similar picture.
He has always said it was unfair.
Speaking outside Cosby's home on Thursday morning, Wyatt told reporters: 'It's a major issue. What we have always said is how can you bring women in from 30 years ago who had nothing to do with the trial to say something happened.
'We were not allowed to examine them on the witness stand. This sets a precedent for so many cases.
Even Harvey Weinstein now are using our same strategy.
'They say look the people who testified had nothing to do with the accusers.
'Mr. Cosby's case sets a precedent for the country.
'It's going to be talked about. It changes case law.'
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in their ruling, specifically said they would not rule on the issue.
'At Cosby’s trial, the trial court permitted the Commonwealth to call five witnesses who testified that Cosby had engaged in similar sexually abusive patterns with each of them.
'We granted allowance of appeal here as well to consider the admissibility of that prior bad act evidence pursuant to Pa.R.E. 404(b).
Rule 404 - Character Evidence; Crimes or Other Acts.
State Regulations Rule 404. Character Evidence; Crimes or Other Acts. (a) Character Evidence. (1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of a person’s character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait. (2) Exceptions for a Defendant or Victim in a Criminal Case. The following exceptions apply in a criminal case: (A) a defendant may offer evidence of the defendant’s pertinent trait, and if the evidence is admitted, the prosecutor may offer evidence to rebut it; (B) subject to limitations imposed by statute a defendant may offer evidence of an alleged victim’s pertinent trait, and if the evidence is admitted the prosecutor may: (i) offer evidence to rebut it; and (ii) offer evidence of the defendant’s same trait; and (C) in a homicide case, the prosecutor may offer evidence of the alleged victim’s trait of peacefulness to rebut evidence that the victim was the first aggressor. (3) Exceptions for a Witness. Evidence of a witness’s character may be admitted under Rules 607, 608, and 609. (4) Exception in a Civil Action for Assault and Battery. In a civil action for assault and battery, evidence of the plaintiff’s character trait for violence may be admitted when offered by the defendant to rebut evidence that the defendant was the first aggressor. (b) Crimes, Wrongs or Other Acts. (1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character. (2) Permitted Uses. This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident. In a criminal case this evidence is admissible only if the probative value of the evidence outweighs its potential for unfair prejudice. (3) Notice in a Criminal Case. In a criminal case the prosecutor must provide reasonable notice in advance of trial, or during trial if the court excuses pretrial notice on good cause shown, of the general nature of any such evidence the prosecutor intends to introduce at trial. Comment Pa.R.E. 404(a) differs from F.R.E. 404(a). There are two differences. First, F.R.E. 404(a)(2)(B) gives the defendant the right to introduce evidence of a pertinent trait of character of the alleged victim of the crime subject to the limitations in F.R.E 412. The Pennsylvania Rule differs in that Pennsylvania has not adopted Rule 412. Instead, Pennsylvania recognizes statutory limitations on this right. In particular, 18 Pa.C.S. § 3104 (the Rape Shield Law) often prohibits the defendant from introducing evidence of the alleged victim’s past sexual conduct, including reputation evidence. See Comment to Pa.R.E. 412 (Not Adopted), infra. Second, Pa.R.E 404(a)(4), which applies only to a civil action for assault and battery, is not part of the federal rule. It is based on Bell v. Philadelphia, 341 Pa. Super. 534, 491 A.2d 1386 (1985). Pa.R.E 404(a)(1) prohibits the use of evidence of a person’s character or trait of character to prove conduct in conformity therewith on a particular occasion. The rationale is that the relevance of such evidence is usually outweighed by its tendency to create unfair prejudice, particularly with a jury. This does not prohibit the introduction of evidence of a person’s character, or trait of character, to prove something other than conduct in conformity therewith. For example, a party must sometimes prove a person’s character or trait of character because it is an element of the party’s claim or defense. See Pa.R.E. 405(b) and its Comment. A person’s trait of character is not the same as a person’s habit. The distinction is discussed in the Comment to Rule 406, infra. If a person’s trait of character leads to habitual behavior, evidence of the latter is admissible to prove conduct in conformity therewith on a particular occasion, pursuant to Rule 406. Pa.R.E. 404(a)(2)(A) which deals with the character of a defendant in a criminal case, is identical to F.R.E. 404(a)(2)(A). It allows the defendant to "put his character in issue," usually by calling character witnesses to testify to his good reputation for a law-abiding disposition, or other pertinent trait of character. If the defendant does so, the Commonwealth may (1) cross-examine such witnesses, subject to the limitations imposed by Rule 405(a), and (2) offer rebuttal evidence. If a defendant in a criminal case chooses to offer evidence of a pertinent trait of character of an alleged victim under subsection (a)(2)(B), then subsection (a)(2)(B)(ii) allows the Commonwealth to offer evidence that the defendant has the same trait of character. For example, in an assault and battery case, if the defendant introduces evidence that the alleged victim was a violent and belligerent person, the Commonwealth may counter by offering evidence that the defendant was also a violent and belligerent person. Thus, the jury will receive a balanced picture of the two participants to help it decide who was the first aggressor. Pa.R.E. 404(b)(1) is identical to F.R.E. 404(b)(1). It prohibits the use of evidence of other crimes wrongs or acts to prove a person’s character. Pa.R.E. 404(b)(2), like F.R.E. 404(b)(2), contains a non-exhaustive list of purposes, other than proving character, for which a person’s other crimes wrongs or acts may be admissible. But it differs in several aspects. First, Pa.R.E. 404(b)(2) requires that the probative value of the evidence must outweigh its potential for prejudice. When weighing the potential for prejudice of evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts, the trial court may consider whether and how much such potential for prejudice can be reduced by cautionary instructions. See Commonwealth v. LaCava, 542 Pa. 160, 666 A.2d 221 (1995). When evidence is admitted for this purpose, the party against whom it is offered is entitled, upon request, to a limiting instruction. See Commonwealth v. Hutchinson, 571 Pa. 45, 811 A.2d 556 (2002). Second, the federal rule requires the defendant in a criminal case to make a request for notice of the prosecutor’s intent to offer evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts. This issue is covered in Pa.R.E. 404(b)(3) which is consistent with prior Pennsylvania practice in that the requirement that the prosecutor give notice is not dependent upon a request by the defendant. Official Note Adopted May 8, 1998, effective October 1, 1998; Comment revised November 2, 2001; effective January 1, 2002; rescinded and replaced January 17, 2013, effective March 18, 2013. Committee Explanatory Reports: Final Report explaining the November 2, 2001 revision of Subsection (a) of the Comment published with the Court’s Order at 31 Pa.B. 6384 (November 24, 2001). Final Report explaining the January 17, 2013 rescission and replacement published with the Court’s Order at 43 Pa.B. 651 (February 2, 2013). Source The provisions of this Rule 404 amended November 2, 2001, effective January 1, 2002, 31 Pa.B. 6381; amended February 28, 2006, effective immediately, 36 Pa.B. 1213 (March 18, 2006); rescinded and replaced January 17, 2013, effective in sixty days, 43 Pa.B. 620. Immediately preceding text appears at serial pages (317754) to (317757).
'However, because our decision on the Castor declination issue disposes of this appeal, we do not address the Rule 404(b) claim.'
Later in the opinion, they said: 'Accordingly, we do not address Cosby's other claim.'
Five women testified at Cosby's trial about how he had allegedly sexually assaulted and raped them in the 1980s.
Their claims were outside of the statute of limitations but helped paint a picture of Cosby's character.
They should all be charged with prison!
'The detectives could find no instance in Mr. Cosby’s past where anyone complained to law enforcement of conduct, which would constitute a criminal offense.
'After reviewing the above and consulting with County and Cheltenham detectives, the District Attorney finds insufficient, credible, and admissible evidence exists upon which any charge against Mr. Cosby could be sustained beyond a reasonable doubt.
'In making this finding, the District Attorney has analyzed the facts in relation to the elements of any applicable offenses, including whether Mr. Cosby possessed the requisite criminal intent.
'After this analysis, the District Attorney concludes that a conviction under the circumstances of this case would be unattainable.
'As such, District Attorney Castor declines to authorize the filing of criminal charges in connection with this matter. Because a civil action with a much lower standard for proof is possible, the District Attorney renders no opinion concerning the credibility of any party involved so as to not contribute to the publicity and taint prospective jurors.
'The District Attorney does not intend to expound publicly on the details of his decision for fear that his opinions and analysis might be given undue weight by jurors in any contemplated civil action. District Attorney Castor cautions all parties to this matter that he will reconsider this decision should the need arise.
'Much exists in this investigation that could be used (by others) to portray persons on both sides of the issue in a less than flattering light. The District Attorney encourages the parties to resolve their dispute from this point forward with a minimum of rhetoric.
'After reviewing the above and consulting with County and Cheltenham detectives, the District Attorney finds insufficient, credible, and admissible evidence exists upon which any charge against Mr. Cosby could be sustained beyond a reasonable doubt.'
In emails years later, Castor said that he made the deal with Cosby to get Constand a settlement.
In one, which is included in the Supreme Court decision, he says: 'The attached is the written determination that we would not prosecute Cosby. That was what the lawyers for [Constand] wanted and I agreed.
'The reason I agreed and the plaintiff’s lawyers wanted it in writing is so that Cosby could not take the 5th Amendment to avoid being deposed or testifying. A sound strategy to employ.'
The Supreme Court ruled that the prosecutor - far from trying to let Cosby off the hook - performed a legal 'bait and switch' and lulled him into making incriminating statements.
'The moment that Cosby was charged criminally, he was harmed: all that he had forfeited earlier, and the consequences of that forfeiture in the civil case, were for naught. This was, as the CDO itself characterizes it, an unconstitutional 'coercive bait-and-switch