First Cosby Juror Speaks Out, And Here's What He Said

NORRISTOWN, PA — The first Bill Cosby juror to speak publicly reportedly said that it was Cosby's own testimony that ensured the former comedian's guilty verdict.

In an interview with ABC News, Montgomery County resident Harrison Snyder, 22, said that Cosby's now infamous deposition, in which he admitted giving Quaaludes to young women so that he could have sex with them, might have been the most damning piece of evidence.

The Quaaludes testimony was a disputed piece of evidence which was not admitted by Judge Steven T. O'Neill until well into the trial. Prosecutors argued that the statements reflected Cosby's character and a "cloak" which he was hiding behind, and O'Neill ultimately agreed.

>>Cosby Must Undergo Sexually Violent Predator Assessment

Cosby, 80, was found guilty on all three counts of aggravated indecent assault connected to drugging and sexually assaulting Andrea Constand, 45, inside his Cheltenham home in 2004. Each count carries with it a possible sentence of up to 10 years in prison.

While Constand, who was acquainted with Cosby while she was working at Temple University, is just one of dozens of women who have accused Cosby of similar sexual misdeeds, her case is the first to progress this far in the justice system.

The interview with Snyder also revealed other interesting tidbits. Snyder, like jurors interviewed following the first trial, did not believe the matter of Cosby's guilt was simple.

>>Celebrities, Leaders React As Bill Cosby Found Guilty

"You don't feel even now that it was an open and shut case?" Linsey Davis, with ABC News, reportedly asked Snyder.

"No," he said.

Snyder said that he did not know much about Cosby and knew nothing about the allegations before the trial, according to the report. He said he did not watch the news.

Constand's testimony - along with the testimony of Cosby's other five accusers - were other major moments for the jury, the report states. Snyder said he believed Constand and all of the other accusers when they told what had happened to them.

Following the 2017 mistrial, one of the jurors who went public said that the trial ultimately came down to whose word could be trusted: Cosby's, or Constand's. There was not enough evidence to go on anything other than that, he said. Ultimately, the jury trusted Constand more than Cosby.

Much of the defense's work in the trial aimed at undermining Constand's trustworthiness, particularly citing the length of time following the alleged incident it took for her to report it to authorities. Experts with the National Sexual Violence Resource Center (NSVRC), however, say this is not out of the ordinary.

"When sexual assault reports are made, delayed and partial reports are normal, and should be expected," NSVRC Communications Director Laura Palumbo said. "This is especially common in cases where the victim knows the perpetrator. When the assailant is a person in a position of power or trust, reporting is even more unlikely."

Similar testimony in the trial convinced the jury, the report states. And unlike Cosby's first trial last June, there was no dissent among the jurors this time.

"Some have said that I made the right decision, and some people have said that they still think that he's innocent," Snyder said in the interview. "And I just tell them, if you were there, you would say the same thing, you would say that he's guilty."

Image by Randy Miramontez via Shutterstock