Bill Cosby Guilty Verdict: A Cultural Shift?

This week, a jury in the Montgomery County, Pennsylvania trial of Bill Cosby found the actor and comedian guilty of drugging and sexually assaulting a woman 14 years ago. Sentencing for the three counts of aggravated indecent assault, all felonies, has not been set. The case, a retrial of one last year, was perhaps the first high-profile one in the #metoo movement. And, with an estimated fifty women on record accusing Mr. Cosby of similar sexual assaults, one of the most dramatic. Here, Stanford Law Professor Deborah Rhode offers her quick reaction to the verdict and thoughts on the case.

What are the big takeaways from the verdict?

I think this is confirmation of change in cultural consciousness that has resulted this past year in the aftermath of #metoo, and allegations that were once viewed with more skepticism are now viewed with more credibility.

I also think this will encourage more individuals to come forward. They’ll have more faith that their stories will be believed. And I think it will make prosecutors more willing to bring cases of acquaintance rape, which have traditionally been one of the main hurdles. Prosecutors want to win and these cases, traditionally, have been difficult. And they have been so costly for the victims, financially and psychologically. I think that’s starting to change.

Deborah L. Rhode 2
Professor Deborah Rhode

Do you think the #metoo movement may have played into this?

The sheer volume of complaints that have been made and have been found to be substantiated and have resulted in the toppling of careers of extremely powerful, previously well regarded men have, I think, opened people’s eyes to the pervasiveness of sexual abuse and the kind of victimization of victims that often silences them and perpetuates serial abuse. The jury this time around was more conscious of what’s been going on in the culture generally.

Last year’s trial against Mr. Cosby ended in a mistrial. Why do you think the prosecution was successful this time?

It looked as though he was a serial abuser and there was a pattern of predatory behavior. And the focus of the defense to paint this woman as opportunistic was less plausible in light of the other victims.

And it looks like there was a change in the defense team’s trial strategy this time around. A greater effort was made to paint the main accuser as someone who fabricated the story for money. And that was less convincing to the jury in light of the other women who were able to testify to similar experiences. In the first trial only one other victim was allowed to testify.  It’s very easy, when it’s a he said/she said case, to dismiss one person or maybe even two as you can find a motive for fabrication. It’s much harder to dismiss the accusation when there are five similar ones supporting it.

Deborah L. Rhode is the Ernest W. McFarland Professor of Law, the director of the Center on the Legal Profession, and the director of the Program in Law and Social Entrepreneurship at Stanford University. The most frequently cited scholar on legal ethics, she is the author most recently of  Women and Leadership, Adultery, The Trouble With Lawyers, What Women Want, and The Beauty Bias.