#NNPA BlackPress

COMMENTARY: Bill Cosby Handed Bum Deal from Superior Court

NNPA NEWSWIRE — The primary reason that Cosby and his team cited to justify the appeal is that Judge Steven T. O’Neill allowed the testimony of prior bad acts – five other women who were not connected to this case but who claimed they were also drugged and assaulted by Cosby.

Published

6 years ago

January 3, 2020

Stacy M. Brown

Cosby maintains that he had never given women Quaaludes without their knowledge or consent. He said he obtained them because, in the 1970s, "it was the in thing." Both women and men wanted them, similar to the ecstasy craze of the 1980s and 1990s.

By Stacy M. Brown, NNPA Newswire Senior Correspondent
@StacyBrownMedia

On December 10, the Pennsylvania Superior Court unanimously rejected Bill Cosby’s appeal.

The primary reason that Cosby and his team cited to justify the appeal is that Judge Steven T. O’Neill allowed the testimony of prior bad acts – five women who were not connected to this case Cosby was tried for but who claimed that they were also drugged and assaulted by Cosby.

According to several attorneys and legal experts interviewed by NNPA Newswire, that ruling and many of the other decisions made by O’Neill over the course of the trial, were questionable.

“With respect to prior bad acts evidence, such as these other accusers, trial courts often let this type of evidence in where the Commonwealth can show that the allegations were similar or somewhat similar to the allegations in the current case, and the appellate courts usually approve of this,” stated Zak Goldstein, a Philadelphia-based criminal appeals attorney with the firm, Goldstein Mehta LLC.

“It then becomes incredibly difficult to obtain a fair trial as this type of propensity evidence is overwhelmingly prejudicial,” Goldstein added.

For those that may be unaware, Cosby faced two trials.

The first trial resulted in a hung jury where 10 of the 12 jurors voted to acquit Cosby.

The second trial resulted in Cosby’s conviction and a three-to-10-year prison sentence.

The NNPA Newswire covered both trials and their aftermath.

Both trials hinged upon Cosby’s interaction with Andrea Constand, a former Temple University athlete and employee.

Cosby acknowledged giving Constand one-and-a-half tablets of Benadryl, which is less than the normally dispensed dosage.

Benadryl is an antihistamine used to relieve symptoms of allergy, hay fever, and the common cold. It is considered one of the oldest and most frequently used over-the-counter medications for children, and normally dispensed in 25 MG tablets at a dosage of one to two tablets every four-to-six hours.

Contrary to popular belief, Quaaludes were never administered to Constand.

Both Cosby and Constand agree that Constand was never coerced to accept the Benadryl tablets. She accepted them and consumed them of her own free will.

During Cosby’s initial trial, in 2017, Constand and Kelly Johnson, who worked for Cosby’s agent, the William Morris Agency, were allowed to testify.

Both women alleged that Cosby drugged and sexually assaulted them.

Johnson initially testified said the incident happened in the late 1980s. However, during her testimony she changed the date of the incident at least three times, citing a different year each time.

While O’Neill allowed prosecutors to call Johnson, whose case was arguably unrelated to Constand, to testify, he refused to allow Cosby’s lawyers to call Marguerite Jackson, a Temple University employee, who in a sworn affidavit, said Constand told her about Constand’s scheme to “get Cosby.”

Because of O’Neill’s refusal to allow testimony from Jackson, the defense did not call a single witness during the 2017 trial, which ended in a hung jury.

“It is not surprising to me that the first trial, where only one ‘prior bad act’ was allowed into evidence, resulted in a hung jury while the second trial, where more accusers were allowed to testify, resulted in a conviction,” Goldstein stated.

In the second trial in 2018, O’Neill shockingly reversed his decision from allowing one woman to testify against Cosby, to letting prosecutors call five other women who had decades-old, uncharged, and unproven claims against the actor.

One of the women, Janice Baker-Kinney, testified that she had taken a Quaalude BEFORE visiting Cosby. Later, she said she accepted another pill from Cosby while at his home in Tahoe, Nevada.

When asked on the witness stand why she took a Quaalude, Baker-Kinney gave perhaps the most damning response: “To get in the mood,” she stated.

Another woman, Chelan Lasha, gave her testimony while being coached from the audience by her attorney.

The Black Press observed attorney Gloria Allred appearing to motion for her client to cry while on the witness stand. Lasha sobbed throughout the entire, almost unintelligible testimony.

O’Neill refused to allow Cosby’s attorneys to question Lasha, or inform the jury, about her reported history of perjury and prostitution.

Another woman, former supermodel Janice Dickinson, testified that Cosby assaulted her in the 1980s.

Dickinson claimed that she was on a modeling shoot on an exotic island with her boyfriend when Cosby called her from Nevada.

She immediately left the boyfriend and flew to Nevada, where she had dinner with Cosby and a friend.

Dickinson said she went to Cosby’s room, and he drugged and assaulted her.

In her memoirs, however, Dickinson wrote an entirely different story.

She said, “Cosby was such a gentleman,” and noted that she had gotten high on her own. A photo displayed in court regarding the night in question was curious.

It showed Cosby in a robe and talking on the telephone, while Dickinson lies on a bed appearing alert and a willing participant in whatever was to take place.

The second trial also was a lesson on how not to select a jury.

When selected, Juror #11, quipped that Cosby was already guilty. However, O’Neill refused defense attorneys request to remove him.

Also, despite other jurors admitting to “personal relationships” with case detectives and prosecutors, O’Neill also refused defense motions to remove them.

One juror even admitted to being neighbors and friends with O’Neill’s court reporter, but the judge declined to remove that individual.

The judge also refused to rule on whether the statute of limitations had expired.

In Pennsylvania, the statute of limitations on sexual assault is 12 years. For prosecutors to have brought a case against Cosby that dated back to 2004, it must have been done by December 31, 2016.

A day earlier, on December 30, 2016, prosecutors did charge Cosby.

Lead defense attorney Tom Mesereau laid out travel and telephone records that should have proved that the case against Cosby was filed after the statute of limitations had run.

O’Neill declined to rule on the statute of limitations, and decided to allow jurors to determine if they had indeed expired. Based on statements released by the jury, they never considered the law about the statute of limitations.

Prosecutors pinpointed the date of the Constand/Cosby incident to the second or third week in January 2004. However, evidence showed that Cosby wasn’t in Pennsylvania at all in January 2004.

The documents also showed Cosby wasn’t in the state in December 2003.

Perhaps the most credible witness called by either side was Cosby’s former personal chef, John-Conrad Ste. Marthe.

Earlier, Constand testified that the Ste. Marthe was at the house the night of the incident and left after preparing a meal, and he was still in Cosby’s employ.

Ste. Marthe remembered Constand but testified that he left his position in May of 2003 – a 2009 New York Times feature on the chef noted that he did leave Cosby’s employ in 2003.

O’Neill also limited testimony of a key defense witness who had sworn in a deposition that Constand and her mother were seeking money from Cosby.

Robert Russell, a former friend of Constand, said Constand was hooked on mushrooms and marijuana, and she came to America to try and become a millionaire.

Russell said he, Constand, and her mother, Gianna, were close friends in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

“The prosecution is trying to say that [Constand] is some innocent babe in the woods,” Mesereau said at the time. “They’ve painted the idea that’s she’s naïve, pure and holistic, and that she was naïve in accepting pills from Bill Cosby.”

Russell, who said Constand’s mother, Gianna, “hated blacks and gays,” said Constand wasn’t “this holistic person” she portrayed herself to be and that she had a plan to get $1 million from Cosby, who eventually paid Constand nearly $4 million to settle a civil claim she’d brought against him after prosecutors initially declined to prosecute Cosby.

That civil case involved Cosby providing a deposition that included his response to Constand’s lawyers questioning whether he had provided Quaaludes to women he dated decades earlier.

In the deposition, Cosby maintained that he had never given women Quaaludes without their knowledge or consent. He said he obtained them because, in the 1970s, “it was the in thing.” Both women and men wanted them, similar to the ecstasy craze of the 1980s and 1990s.

When asked if he gave them to women whom he wanted to have sex with, Cosby said he did.

While his statements to police and in his deposition remained consistent, Constand’s statements changed several times. So much so, that former District Attorney, Bruce Castor, advised her to seek civil remedies because he said: “she’s not credible.”

O’Neill refused to allow Castor to testify on behalf of the defense, in part, because of a longstanding feud between the judge and Castor.

Reportedly, O’Neill blamed Castor for outing an affair O’Neill had with a then-assistant district attorney in Castor’s office.

During the Cosby trial, O’Neill refused to recuse himself, and inexplicably gave an emotional and arguably inappropriate dissertation from the bench on how much he loves his wife and how she’s independent.

As jurors deliberated Cosby’s fate, O’Neill was seen and heard outside of the juror room, whistling the song from the hit movie, “Kill Bill.”

Shortly afterward, the jury reached its verdict to convict Cosby.

Stacy M. Brown

Posts by Stacy M. Brown

Up Next

A Tribute to a Living Legend: Civil Rights Icon John Lewis

Don't Miss

Remembering Oscar Grant 11-Years after Fatal Fruitvale BART Police Shooting

Stacy M. Brown

Click to comment

Pingback: Panafricanmedia Networks

#NNPA BlackPress

A Nation in Freefall While the Powerful Feast: Trump Calls Affordability a ‘Con Job’

BLACKPRESSUSA NEWSWIRE — There are seasons in this country when the struggle of ordinary Americans is not merely a condition but a kind of weather that settles over everything.

Published

4 weeks ago

December 3, 2025

Stacy M. Brown

By Stacy M. Brown
Black Press USA Senior National Correspondent

There are seasons in this country when the struggle of ordinary Americans is not merely a condition but a kind of weather that settles over everything. It enters the grocery aisle, the overdue bill, the rent notice, and the long nights spent calculating how to get through the next week. The latest numbers show that this season has not passed. It has deepened.

Private employers cut 32,000 jobs in November, according to ADP. Because the nation has been hemorrhaging jobs since President Trump took office, the administration has halted publishing the traditional monthly report. The ADP report revealed that small businesses suffered the heaviest losses. Establishments with fewer than 50 workers shed 120,000 positions, including 74,000 from companies with 20 to 49 workers. Larger firms added 90,000 jobs, widening the split between those rising and those falling.

Meanwhile, wealth continues to climb for the few who already possess most of it. Federal Reserve data shows the top 1 percent now holds $52 trillion. The top 10 percent added $5 trillion in the second quarter alone. The bottom half gained only 6 percent over the past year, a number so small it fades beside the towering fortunes above it.

“Less educated and poorer people tend to make worse mistakes,” John Campbell said to CBS News, while noting that the complexity of the system leaves many families lost before they even begin. Campbell, a Harvard University economist and coauthor of a book examining the country’s broken personal finance structure, pointed to a system built to confuse and punish those who lack time, training, or access.

“Creditors are just breathing down their necks,” Carol Fox told Bloomberg News, while noting that rising borrowing costs, shrinking consumer spending, and trade battles under the current administration have left owners desperate. Fox serves as a court-appointed Subchapter V trustee in Southern Florida and has watched the crisis unfold case by case.

During a cabinet meeting on Tuesday, Trump told those present that affordability “doesn’t mean anything to anybody.” He added that Democrats created a “con job” to mislead the public.

However, more than $30 million in taxpayer funds reportedly have supported his golf travel. Reports show Kristi Noem and FBI Director Kash Patel have also made extensive use of private jets through government and political networks. The administration approved a $40 billion bailout of Argentina. The president’s wealthy donors recently gathered for a dinner celebrating his planned $300 million White House ballroom.

During an appearance on CNBC, Mark Zandi, an economist, warned that the country could face serious economic threats. “We have learned that people make many mistakes,” Campbell added. “And particularly, sadly, less educated and poorer people tend to make worse mistakes.”

Stacy M. Brown

Posts by Stacy M. Brown

#NNPA BlackPress

The Numbers Behind the Myth of the Hundred Million Dollar Contract

BLACKPRESSUSA NEWSWIRE — Odell Beckham Jr. did not spark controversy on purpose. He sat on The Pivot Podcast and tried to explain the math behind a deal that looks limitless from the outside but shrinks fast once the system takes its cut.

Published

4 weeks ago

December 3, 2025

Stacy M. Brown

By Stacy M. Brown
Black Press USA Senior National Correspondent

Odell Beckham Jr. did not spark controversy on purpose. He sat on The Pivot Podcast and tried to explain the math behind a deal that looks limitless from the outside but shrinks fast once the system takes its cut. He looked into the camera and tried to offer a truth most fans never hear. “You give somebody a five-year $100 million contract, right? What is it really? It is five years for sixty. You are getting taxed. Do the math. That is twelve million a year that you have to spend, use, save, invest, flaunt,” said Beckham. He added that buying a car, buying his mother a house, and covering the costs of life all chip away at what people assume lasts forever.

The reaction was instant. Many heard entitlement. Many heard a millionaire complaining. What they missed was a glimpse into a professional world built on big numbers up front and a quiet erasing of those numbers behind the scenes.

The tax data in Beckham’s world is not speculation. SmartAsset’s research shows that top NFL players often lose close to half their income to federal taxes, state taxes, and local taxes. The analysis explains that athletes in California face a state rate of 13.3 percent and that players are also taxed in every state where they play road games, a structure widely known as the jock tax. For many players, that means filing up to ten separate returns and facing a combined tax burden that reaches or exceeds 50 percent.

A look across the league paints the same picture. The research lists star players in New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, Detroit, and Cleveland, all giving up between 43 and 47 percent of their football income before they ever touch a dollar. Star quarterback Phillip Rivers, at one point, was projected to lose half of his playing income to taxes alone.

A second financial breakdown from MGO CPA shows that the problem does not only affect the highest earners. A $1 million salary falls to about $529,000 after federal taxes, state and city taxes, an agent fee, and a contract deduction. According to that analysis, professional athletes typically take home around half of their contract value, and that is before rent, meals, training, travel, and support obligations are counted.

The structure of professional sports contracts adds another layer. A study of major deals across MLB, the NBA, and the NFL notes that long-term agreements lose value over time because the dollar today has more power than the dollar paid in the future. Even the largest deals shrink once adjusted for time. The study explains that contract size alone does not guarantee financial success and that structure and timing play a crucial role in a player’s long-term outcomes.

Beckham has also faced headlines claiming he is “on the brink of bankruptcy despite earning over one hundred million” in his career. Those reports repeated his statement that “after taxes, it is only sixty million” and captured the disbelief from fans who could not understand how money at that level could ever tighten.

Other reactions lacked nuance. One article wrote that no one could relate to any struggle on eight million dollars a year. Another described his approach as “the definition of a new-money move” and argued that it signaled poor financial choices and inflated spending.

But the underlying truth reaches far beyond Beckham. Professional athletes enter sudden wealth without preparation. They carry the weight of family support. They navigate teams, agents, advisors, and expectations from every direction. Their earning window is brief. Their career can end in a moment. Their income is fragmented, taxed, and carved up before the public ever sees the real number.

The math is unflinching. Twenty million dollars becomes something closer to $8 million after federal taxes, state taxes, jock taxes, agent fees, training costs, and family responsibilities. Over five years, that is about $40 million of real, spendable income. It is transformative money, but not infinite. Not guaranteed. Not protected.

Beckham offered a question at the heart of this entire debate. “Can you make that last forever?”

Stacy M. Brown

Posts by Stacy M. Brown

#NNPA BlackPress

FBI Report Warns of Fear, Paralysis, And Political Turmoil Under Director Kash Patel

BLACKPRESSUSA NEWSWIRE — Six months into Kash Patel’s tenure as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, a newly compiled internal report from a national alliance of retired and active-duty FBI agents and analysts delivers a stark warning about what the Bureau has become under his leadership.

Published

4 weeks ago

December 2, 2025

Stacy M. Brown

By Stacy M. Brown

Black Press USA Senior National Correspondent

Six months into Kash Patel’s tenure as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, a newly compiled internal report from a national alliance of retired and active-duty FBI agents and analysts delivers a stark warning about what the Bureau has become under his leadership. The 115-page document, submitted to Congress this month, is built entirely on verified reporting from inside field offices across the country and paints a picture of an agency gripped by fear, divided by ideology, and drifting without direction.

The report’s authors write that they launched their inquiry after receiving troubling accounts from inside the Bureau only four months into Patel’s tenure. They describe their goal as a pulse check on whether the ninth FBI director was reforming the Bureau or destabilizing it. Their conclusion: the preliminary findings were discouraging.

Reports Describe Widespread Internal Distrust and Open Hostility Toward President Trump

Sources across the country told investigators that a large number of FBI employees openly express hostility toward President Donald Trump. One source reported seeing an “increasing number of FBI Special Agents who dislike the President,” adding that these employees were exhibiting what they called “TDS” and had lost “their ability to think critically about an issue and distinguish fact from fiction.” Another source described employees making off-color comments about the administration during office conversations.

The sentiment reportedly extends beyond domestic lines. Law enforcement and intelligence partners in allied countries have privately expressed fear that the Trump administration could damage long-term international cooperation according to a sub-source who reported those concerns directly to investigators.

Pardon Backlash and Fear of Retaliation

The President’s January 20 pardons of individuals convicted for their roles in the January 6 attack ignited what the report calls demoralization inside the Bureau. One FBI employee said they were “demoralized” that individuals “rightfully convicted” were pardoned and feared that some of those individuals or their supporters might target them or their family for carrying out their duties. Another source described widespread anger that lists of personnel who worked on January 6 investigations had been provided to the Justice Department for review, noting that agents “were just following orders” and now worry those lists could leak publicly.

Morale In Decline

Morale among FBI employees appears to be sinking fast. There were a few scattered positive notes, but the weight of the reporting describes morale as low, bad, or terrible. Agents with more than a decade of service told investigators they feel marginalized or ignored. Some are counting the days until they can retire. One even uses a countdown app on their phone.

Culture Of Fear

Layered over that unhappiness is something far more corrosive. A culture of fear. Sources say Patel, though personable, created mistrust from the start because of harsh remarks he made about the FBI before taking office. Agents took those comments personally. They now work in an atmosphere where employees keep their heads down and speak carefully. Managers wait for directions because they are afraid a wrong move could cost them their jobs. One source said agents dread coming to work because nobody knows who will be reassigned or fired next.

Leadership Concerns

The report also paints a picture of leaders unprepared for the jobs they hold. Multiple sources said Patel is in over his head and lacks the breadth of experience required to understand the Bureau’s complex programs. Some said Deputy Director Dan Bongino should never have been appointed because the role requires deep institutional knowledge of FBI operations. A sub-source recounted Bongino telling employees during a field office visit that “the truth is for chumps.” Employees who heard it were stunned and offended.

Social Media and Communication Breakdowns

Communication inside the Bureau has become another source of frustration. Sources said Patel and Bongino spend too much time posting on social media and not enough time communicating with employees in clear and official ways. Several told investigators they learn more about FBI operations from tweets than from internal channels.

ICE Assignments Raise Alarm

Nothing has sparked more frustration inside the FBI than the orders requiring agents to assist Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The reporting shows widespread resentment and fear over these assignments. Agents say they have little training in immigration law and were ordered into operations without proper planning. Some said they were put in tactically unsafe positions. They also warned that being pulled away from counterterrorism and counterintelligence investigations threatens national security. One sub-source asked, “If we’re not working CT and CI, then who is?”

DEI Program Removal

Even the future of diversity programs became a point of division. Some agents praised Patel’s removal of DEI initiatives. Others said the old system left them afraid to speak honestly because they worried about being labeled racist. The reporting shows a deep and unresolved conflict over whether DEI strengthened the organization or weakened it.

Notable Incidents

The document also details several incidents that have become part of FBI lore. Patel ordered all employees to remove pronouns and personal messages from their email signatures yet used the number nine in his own. Agents laughed at what they saw as hypocrisy. In another episode, FBI employees who discussed Patel’s request for an FBI-issued firearm were ordered to take polygraph examinations, which one respected source described as punitive. And in Utah, Patel refused to exit a plane without a medium-sized FBI raid jacket. A team scrambled to find one and finally secured a female agent’s jacket. Patel still refused to step out until patches were added. SWAT members removed patches from their own uniforms to satisfy the demand.

A Bureau at a Crossroad

The Alliance warns that the Bureau stands at a difficult crossroads. They write that the FBI faces some of the most daunting challenges in its history. But even in despair, a few voices say something different. One veteran source said “It is early, but most can see the mission is now the priority. Case work and threats are the focus again. Reform is headed in the right direction.”