Court Document: Montgomery County Judge denies Bill Cosby’s request to suppress deposition testimony
Montgomery County Judge Steven T. O’Neill, Jr. denied Bill Cosby’s pretrial request to suppress his deposition testimony today.
Cosby’s detailed testimony regarding a woman who filed a Jan. 13, 2005 report to authorities in Canada, he said, was only provided to authorities because he was promised that he wouldn’t be prosecuted. Information he provided can be used at his criminal assault trial, O’Neill determined.
The woman said she was allegedly sexually assaulted by Cosby at his Pennsylvania home. The case was ultimately referred to Cheltenham Township Police Department, court documents show.
According to the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, criminal division, Cosby’s effort to “suppress the contents of his civil deposition testimony,” based on his reliance upon former District Attorney Bruce L. Castor Jr.’s alleged promise not to prosecute him as the basis for not invoking the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination at his civil depositions in 2005 and 2006 was not sufficient.
On Feb. 17, 2005, then District Attorney Castor, issued a signed press release stating that he had decided not to prosecute Cosby. Castor testified that it was his intention to strip Cosby of his Fifth Amendment right to force him into a deposition in an unfiled civil case and that the defendant’s criminal attorney agreed with Castor’s legal assessment.
One of the conclusions, included in the judge’s order, explains: “Because there was no promise, there can be no reliance on the part of the Defendant and principals of fundamental fairness and due process have not been violated.”
The order reads: “And, now, this 5th day of December, 2016, upon consideration of the “Defendant’s Motion to Suppress The Contents Of His Deposition Testimony and Any Evidence Derived Therefrom on the Basis that the District Attorney’s Promise Not to Prosecute Him Induced Him to Waive His Fifth Amendment Right Against Self-Incrimination,” filed August 12, 2016, the Commonwealth’s Response thereto, filed September 2, 2016, and after hearing before the undersigned on November 1, 2016, based upon the arguments of counsel and the evidence adduced, the Defendant’s Motion to Suppress is hereby DENIED in its entirety.”