Judge rules Bill Cosby can't avoid sexual assault charges

The sexual assault case against comedian Bill Cosby will move forward, after a judge ruled that the entertainer did not have immunity from facing criminal charges as he had previously claimed, the Associated Press reported Wednesday.

Judge Steven T. O’Neill heard two days of testimony concerning Cosby’s December arrest for the drugging and sexual assault of former Temple University department employee Andrea Constand, which allegedly took place in January 2004 in his home.

Constand reported the assault to local authorities shortly after their encounter, but Cosby told investigators the sexual acts were consensual. The district attorney at the time, Bruce Castor, said there was not enough evidence to move forward with the case, so Constand, who had moved to Toronto at that point, filed a civil complaint against Cosby. In the meantime, 13 women had come forward with similar claims as Constand and were mentioned in her case as Jane Doe witnesses. The case was settled the case on undisclosed terms in 2006.

Constand is now one of nearly 60 women who have accused Cosby of sexual assault over the course of several decades.

This week, his lawyers argued that the 2006 settlement established immunity for Cosby from criminal charges. They added that they would not have let Cosby testify in that civil case a decade ago had they known he could have faced criminal charges in the future. But Constand’s lawyer, Dolores Troiani, said Wednesday that such a deal was not agreed upon, which is why current District Attorney Kevin Steele brought charges against Cosby; the situation technically took place within the statute of limitations.

According to AP, Steele told the judge, "A secret agreement that allows a wealthy defendant to buy his way out of a criminal case isn't right."

Will you support Vox’s explanatory journalism?

Most news outlets make their money through advertising or subscriptions. But when it comes to what we’re trying to do at Vox, there are a couple of big issues with relying on ads and subscriptions to keep the lights on:

First, advertising dollars go up and down with the economy. We often only know a few months out what our advertising revenue will be, which makes it hard to plan ahead.

Second, we’re not in the subscriptions business. Vox is here to help everyone understand the complex issues shaping the world — not just the people who can afford to pay for a subscription. We believe that’s an important part of building a more equal society. And we can’t do that if we have a paywall.

So even though advertising is still our biggest source of revenue, we also seek grants and reader support. (And no matter how our work is funded, we have strict guidelines on editorial independence.)

If you also believe that everyone deserves access to trusted high-quality information, will you make a gift to Vox today? Any amount helps.

One-Time Monthly Annual

$5/month

$10/month

$25/month

$50/month

Other

$

Yes, I'll give $5/month

Yes, I'll give $5/month

We accept credit card, Apple Pay, and Google Pay. You can also contribute via