Bill Cosby jury testing patience of judge, defense

NORRISTOWN, PA. — The jury in Bill Cosby’s sexual assault case tested the patience of defense lawyers and even the judge on the fifth day of deliberations Friday as it repeatedly asked to run through testimony from the TV star, his accuser and others, struggling to break a deadlock that threatens to end the trial without a verdict. With deliberations running about as long as the testimony of all the witnesses combined, the 79-year-old TV star’s lawyer complained that jurors were seeking a replay of the entire trial.

Judge Steven O’Neill twice refused defense requests for a mistrial, declaring that jurors could talk as long as they wanted over allegations that Cosby drugged and molested Andrea Constand, 44, at his suburban Philadelphia mansion in 2004.

But even the solicitous judge had his limits, putting his foot down late Friday afternoon when the jurors asked to hear a sliver of testimony they’d just had read back to them. The judge told them they had to rely on their collective memory.

On Friday, the jury asked to review multiple pieces of evidence, including Cosby’s 2006 deposition testimony about quaaludes.

Cosby had said he got seven prescriptions for the powerful sedative in the 1970s for the purpose of giving them to women with whom he wanted to have sex.

The testimony is relevant because Cosby is accused of giving pills to Constand to incapacitate her before their encounter. He has said they were Benadryl, a cold and allergy medicine. Prosecutors have suggested he gave her something stronger.

The jurors also listened to the definition of reasonable doubt, the threshold that prosecutors must cross to win a conviction, and reviewed testimony from Constand and her mother about phone conversations they had with Cosby after the encounter. According to the testimony, Cosby called himself a “sick man” but refused to identify the pills.

Cosby’s lawyer, Brian McMonagle, has said Cosby and Constand were lovers sharing a consensual moment of intimacy.

McMonagle objected in court to the panel’s repeated requests to review testimony, saying it suggested some jurors were trying to coerce other jurors in an attempt to bring an end to the deadlock.

“They were here!” said McMonagle, exasperated.

The judge said he saw no evidence of coercion or trouble in the deliberating room after the jurors reported their impasse on Thursday and he instructed them to keep trying for a verdict.