Law and Fairness: 2 reasons Bill Cosby's sex assault conviction has been overturned by apex court

Bill Cosby (Left) and lawyers address a press conference yesterday after his release from prison in Pennsylvania

I am not a lawyer, but I know that one fundamental ingredient of law is fairness, both for the victim and the accused. Civil law and all law take fundamental rights very seriously. 

If a person is accused of stealing, the law doesn't permit you to call him a thief. It requires you to bring him before a court of competent jurisdiction, and with evidence of him committing the alleged crime, and to prove to the court that the accused indeed committed the crime of stealing. Only the court, the law says, can find the accused guilty of stealing, and hence qualify him as a thief. And until an accused has been convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction, all charges against him are merely allegations in the eyes of law. This is the fairness of law. 

The law also requires that while proving your case in court, you must respect the dignity of the accused. (Yes, the accused is still deemed dignified in the eyes of the law). Hence, you must focus on the merits of the case only while making your arguments and calling witnesses. In law, you don't have a free ticket to malign the character of the accused by making extraneous allegations that have not been validated by a court. Only facts that are based on the merits of the case will be welcomed by the court and sway its decision. Again, this is the fairness of law.

For example, if state prosecutors accuse a man named John of stealing, based on allegations brought by another man named Ayo against him, they'll have to charge him to court. Once in court, they have to prove to and convince the court beyond reasonable doubt, that John committed the crime alleged. They can do this in two major ways: by producing evidence to prove it, and/or producing witnesses who either saw him commit the crime or who can testify to the veracity of the evidence brought against him. 

Your witnesses must be those who can validate your present allegations against  the accused, not those who will make new allegations. For instance, you can't bring in witnesses who will testify that John also stole from them at one other time or the other in the past. That will be a new allegation, and if it hasn't already been litigated in court and John found guilty previously, presenting that witness in this new case will taint it and can serve as grounds to nullify the entire case. So essentially, what these new allegations by the witnesses do is to try to assassinate the character of the accused in no less a place than the hallowed chambers of court! And the law frowns at this. 

This is the first reason why Bill Cosby's sex assault conviction by a trial court in 2018 has just been nullified by the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court, the state's highest court. 

The court frowned at what it rightly deemed to be an attack on the character of the accused (Bill Cosby) by the prosecution when they brought in five other women to testify in court saying that Coby had also sexually assaulted them, and in the 1980s.

In the first place, Cosby was in court because a woman named Andrea Constand had made a police report in 2005 accusing him of sexual assault in January 2004. This was what he was now on trial for before the court. See at timeline of the entire event here. 

But, in making its case against the accused (Cosby), the prosecution had brought in five other women to basically accuse Cosby further of sexual assault. And none of these women had even made a police report around their stated time of the incident in the 1980s, so no court had heard their cases in the past. 

The state Supreme Court said the witness testimony by these five women tainted Bill Cosby's trial fundamentally by not being fair to him. 

Shortly after this ruling by the apex court yesterday, Cosby was released from jail, and he will not be retried again based on the Andrea Constand case, nor those of the other five accusers. 

There are no emotions in law, hence Lady Justice is blindfolded so that she may not see, but her ears are wide open to hear the the facts of of case and law only.

This reason given by the court for its ruling yesterday, though absolutely right, is however a sad one for many other victims of sexual assault who may now find it difficult mustering the courage to come forward.

However, this reasoning by the court is one major reason why I am a proponent of the rule of law and evidence-based prosecution of crime, including rape and other forms of sexual assault. You can read an elaborate article I wrote on the subject matter here.

Read more: #HEALTHTALK 13: COMBATING RAPE IN NIGERIA: A PRAGMATIC APPROACH TO THE ISSUES (PART 2)

There's a second reason the court gave for overturning the conviction. The former District Attorney had made a deal verbally with Cosby and his lawyers that he would not be tried, in exchange for him testifying in a civil deposition, something that Cosby did.

Because of this, the court says, not only was it not fair for the Cosby to have been brought to trial in court, it was wrong for the court to have taken the case too, and it will also be wrong to order that he be tried again now that they have nullified the initial trial as unfair. 

Essentially, whether or not Cosby actually committed this crime, he will now not be tried ever again, based on the pronouncement by the apex court yesterday.

As of yesterday, Bill Cosby had already returned to his home near Philadelphia, PA after addressing a press conference with his lawyers. 

You can click here listen to my podcast further breaking down the reasoning of the court. 

Chukwubuikem Paul Anunaso is a civil/structural engineer based in Lagos, Nigeria. He is also the editor of The Paul Anunaso Blog, and can be reached at anunaso.cp@gmail.com