Two Jurors Were The Reason Why The Bill Cosby Case Ended In A Mistrial 

June 22, 2017 / Posted by:

Last Saturday, a jury in Norristown, PA told the judge in the Bill Cosby trial that they couldn’t reach a decision regarding the three charges against him. The judge declared a mistrial. Bill isn’t out of the woods yet; the Montgomery County district attorney says they will retry him.

Before the judge officially declared a mistrial, the jury said they were deadlocked and they were sent back to deliberate more before finally giving up. They spent a total of 52 hours deliberating. We now know a little bit more about who on the jury refused to believe Bill was guilty. One juror (who remains anonymous) spoke to ABC News and said two jurors were the holdouts. Camille Cosby has two thank-you cards to write today.

The juror says that when they first began deliberating, nearly everyone voted to find Cosby not guilty, but people eventually changed their minds. The final vote ended with 10 out of 12 jurors finding Cosby guilty of “digitally penetrating Andrea Constand without her consent.” On the second count (that she was unconscious or unaware during the incident), the vote was 11 to 1 to acquit. On the third count (that the assault occurred after Cosby gave her drugs without her knowing it), 10 voted guilty. The juror says the two holdouts were “not moving, no matter what” on counts one and three.

The juror adds that no other information about Bill and his alleged pill-slippin’ ways factored into their deliberation. The juror says that the second someone tried to bring another accusation into it (like one of the many accusations from women), the other jurors would cut them off. The juror claims they had no room to pace in the deliberation room, and everyone was highly agitated. Jurors reportedly burst into tears for no reason, several times. A male juror got so frustrated, he punched a concrete wall. The juror claims if they had gone past 52 hours, a fight definitely would have broke out.

ABC News’ chief legal affairs anchor Dan Abrams thinks the defense could use that to support a motion to avoid a retrial. Basically, they would argue that the conditions sucked, and if they had been in a better environment, the jury would have all voted not-guilty.

The next time this case goes to trial, the prosecution may want to slip in some trick questions to weed out any nostalgia-blinded potential jurors. Like “Where were you every Thursday night at 8:00pm during the years of 1984 to 1992?” If they start sweating and stalling for an answer, maybe give them a pass.


Our commenting rules: Don't be racist or bigoted, or get into long-ass fights, or go way off topic when not in an Open Post. Also, promoting adblockers is not allowed. And some comment threads will be pre-moderated, so it may take a second for your comment to show up if it's approved.

alt="drupal analytics" >