Dean Daniel Filler was quoted in a New York Times article about the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s recent decision to overturn Bill Cosby’s sexual assault conviction. 

Much of the legal debate that has followed focuses on a promise for immunity that was made to Cosby in 2005, more than a decade before the criminal trial in which he was convicted. 

While the exact nature of this promise is disputed, Filler questioned whether cases involving everyday individuals without Cosby’s status would have received the same treatment. He said this question should be asked, “Because there is no documentation that this promise was made, only this public statement that does not track exactly with what [the district attorney who made the promise] said.”

The Court’s decision was based upon the finding that prosecutors in Cosby’s case ignored an oral promise for immunity that was made to Cosby in hopes that he would testify in a civil suit filed by Andrea Constand, who also testified in the criminal trial. 

After the alleged promise was made, Cosby testified in the civil suit brought by Constand, and in that testimony he discussed giving quaaludes to women with whom he wished to have sex. This statement was used in Cosby’s criminal trial.