After percolating out of sight, the subject of a mistrial in
the Bill Cosby sexual assault case burst into open court Friday.

Judge Steven T. O’Neill challenged Cosby’s lead lawyer on a
mistrial motion as a deadlocked jury deliberated into its fifth day. Cosby is
charged with three counts of aggravated indecent assault of former Temple
University basketball staffer Andrea Constand in 2004.

“You made motions for mistrial. And as you make them it
appears the court is being ignorant to you,” O’Neill said to the defense
lawyer, Brian McMonagle. “I have no ability to do anything but what I’ve done.”
He rejected the motion.

McMonagle argued that it was fruitless to continue
deliberations.

“What we got now is jurors trying to overcome other jurors
by reading testimony in the case,” he said. “We’re well past the point of free
will.”

The defense’s issue was the length of deliberations, which
Friday evening entered its 50th hour, as well as jurors asking for extensive
recounting of testimony.

But O’Neill shot those arguments down.

“Get me the law that supports what your rhetoric keeps
fostering,” the judge said. As long as the jury is deliberating he could and
would not stop them, and would consider declaring a mistrial only after the
jury returned with another deadlock, he said. “If they say they can’t give me a
unanimous verdict, I intend to act.”

O’Neill then called the jury into the courtroom and asked
them to keep working and let him know if they had reached a stalemate.

He also referred to four previous mistrial requests, which
were made in his chambers, out of public view, and not known before Friday. He
moved this one to open court, he said, because he wanted the public and news
media to be aware he was not pushing the jury to do anything they weren’t
already doing.

O’Neill had appeared impatient Thursday night after a news
conference by Cosby spokesman Andrew Wyatt exhorting the judge to call a
mistrial.

Earlier Friday, O’Neill addressed Cosby on the issue of
mistrial, an unconventional address observers believed was a response to the
Wyatt news conference. In talking to the defendant, O’Neill alluded to issues
being “explain[ed] out in the media” and wanting to “understand the decision
for requesting a mistrial is yours and yours alone.”

He also said to Cosby: “Your counsel has now made a number
of motions for mistrial. Let me make sure you understand” what’s at stake. He
then asked the entertainer a series of questions on whether he had freely given
his approval.

“Every time Mr. McMonagle says [mistrial], I am
understanding that you are consenting to what he has said,” O’Neill said. Cosby
answered the yes-or-no questions emphatically from his defendant’s chair.

The defense has repeatedly told reporters that it would
consider a mistrial to be a win.

But despite the push by Cosby’s camp—and a public eager for
resolution to deliberations that have lasted as long as the trial itself—don’t
expect a quick mistrial call. Legal experts noted the judge has a lot of
latitude in keeping deliberations going.

“The judge doesn’t have any obligation to accommodate the
defense,” said Lisa Houle, a former Los Angeles County prosecutor based in the
South Bay. “I don't know any legal authority that would allow them to call the
shots and have the judge call it quits.”

She said jurors would have to come back and say they’re
hopelessly deadlocked for the judge to consider calling a mistrial, and even
then he might be reluctant. That said, Houle predicted a mistrial is where the
case would probably go—eventually.

“I don't think jury wants to give up, and there seem to be
significant issues that would [prevent a verdict,]” she said.

Indeed, the jury Friday continued seeking to review
testimony, requesting that the judge define a linchpin of the defense’s legal
argument.

“What is reasonable doubt? (The definition),” came the jury
request.

The question suggested the panel was mired in whether the
defense had cast enough legal doubt on the prosecution’s case.

O’Neill then read the definition, which included a doubt
that would cause a “reasonable person” to “hesitate before acting on a matter
of importance” as well as a doubt that was not “manufactured to avoid the
carrying out of an unpleasant duty.”

The jury also requested that the judge read aloud portions
of deposition testimony from the trial involving Cosby’s past purchase of
Quaaludes to facilitate sex with women.

“Was it in your mind you were going to use the Quaaludes for
young women, plural, that you were going to have sex with?” a questioner had
asked.

“Yes,” Cosby had said in the deposition, adding that
Quaaludes “happened to be the drug that young people, kids were partying with,
and I wanted to have it just in case.”

It was the first significant request by the jury to review a
piece of testimony that did not specifically concern the night of the Constand
encounter, and it suggested that jurors were trying to widen their scope as
they sought to break their stalemate.

On Friday afternoon the jury continued to expand the breadth
of questioning even further—suggesting, to some observers, they weren’t making
a lot of headway. The panel requested the testimony of Constand’s mother about
a phone call she had with Cosby as well as Constand’s phone records.

That more diffuse focus — combined with the fact that the
jury approached its 50th hour of deliberations Friday evening — led some
observers to think O’Neill might not send jurors back if they reported another
deadlock. The order for a deadlocked jury to resume deliberations, known as the
Spencer Charge, was already administered by O’Neill on Thursday morning; a
second would be somewhat rarer, especially after that much time had passed.

The defense could also continue to bring case law to the
judge to bolster its argument that periods of quiet from the jury should lead
the judge to unilaterally call a mistrial, though O’Neill has thus far rejected
the precedents presented to him as not sufficiently similar to this trial.

O’Neill continued to press the jury to find a verdict.

“I hope you are well-rested,” he told jurors. “Your form of
questions does indicate you are deliberating, which is exactly what the court
[wants].”

Keyword: bill cosby case, bill cosby case verdict, bill cosby case
update, bill cosby case update, andrea constand, bill cosby verdict, bill cosby
case outcome, bill cosby net worth, bill cosby trial, bill cosby court case, bill
cosby wife

LONDON — A van driving at high speed mowed down
pedestrians on London Bridge late Saturday night before the occupants got out
and began stabbing patrons at nearby bars and restaurants, witnesses said in an
attack that police described as the latest in a string of deadly terrorist
strikes to hit Britain this spring.

Witnesses described a rampage that left a trail of bloodied
bodies on the bridge and in the adjacent Borough Market — both of which are
London landmarks.

The low-tech but high-profile attack will raise questions
about how British security services failed to stop yet another mass-casualty
strike after years of thwarting such attempts.

Police said in a 4 a.m. news conference on Sunday that six
people had been killed, and that officers had shot dead the three attackers.
London Ambulance Service tweeted a statement saying it had taken “at least 48
patients to five hospitals across London.”

The attacks set off scenes of panic in the heart of London
on a cool June evening as the city’s streets were filled with people heading
home from dinner or out for a drink.

In packed pubs — normally scenes of Saturday night revelry
and merriment — patrons threw chairs, bottles and glasses at the attackers as
the assailants used long knives to slash their way through
crowds. Tourists gaped at the carnage from the roofs of double-decker
buses.

London’s Metropolitan Police said the attacks were being
treated as “terrorist incidents.” 

British Prime Minister Theresa May, who returned from the
campaign trail to 10 Downing Street for emergency meetings with security
officials, had earlier described the “terrible incidents” as “a potential
act of terrorism.”

May’s Conservative Party later said it had suspended
national campaigning for the general election, which is scheduled for Thursday.
Other parties were expected to follow suit.

London Mayor Sadiq Khan issued a statement
condemning “a deliberate and cowardly attack on innocent Londoners and
visitors to our city enjoying their Saturday night.”

People in London should expect more police on the streets in
the coming days, Khan said in a television interview on Sunday morning. But
Londoners should not be alarmed and should not let terrorists disrupt daily
life or the upcoming election, he said.

“We can’t allow them to do that,” Khan told Sky News. “We
are not going to be cowered by terrorism.”

In a dawn news conference, Assistant Police Commissioner
Mark Rowley said the three attackers had been shot dead and that authorities
did not believe anyone else was directly involved in carrying out the carnage.

Rowley said the men had not used explosives, despite a
widely distributed photo that appeared to show one of the assailants lying
prone with metal canisters strapped to his body. Rowley said the vest was “a
hoax.”

Saturday marks the third major attack in Britain this
spring. The evening’s carnage carried grim echoes of a similar incident in late
March, when a driver swerved into pedestrians at Westminster Bridge, another
Thames crossing, killing four. The driver then stabbed to death a police
officer at the gates of Parliament.

May had lowered the nation’s threat level only days ago —
from “critical” to “severe” — after having raised it following a bombing last
month at a Manchester pop music concert that was claimed by the Islamic State
and that killed 22 people.

But even with the lower threat level, the nation’s
intelligence services had continued to judge that another attack was likely.

Witnesses reported that a white van was traveling fast —
approximately 50 mph — when it mounted the sidewalk and plowed into a
group of people crossing the Thames River on foot just after 10 p.m. 

The van collided with a guardrail. Bystanders said they
thought the crash may have been an accident, until the occupants got out.

The three men who had been in the vehicle immediately began
stabbing people on the bridge with knives before making their way to
Borough Market, a foodie paradise nestled under the archways of railway
viaducts that attracts locals and tourists from around the world.

It was in the market, located just south of the bridge,
where police killed the attackers and ended the rampage.

“I heard many gunshots, and I heard people running away,”
said Joe Dillon, 23, who was nearby when the attack occurred. “Police
officers were shouting: ‘Get out of here, you need to go!’ I heard at least
eight rounds of gunshots, but I’m not sure who was shooting.”

Cellphone video from a restaurant in the market showed
people diving under tables amid the sound of breaking glass as officers rushed
in and ordered patrons to stay down.

Tamara Alcolea, 24, who works as a bartender in a pub called
Southwark Rooms, which is near the bridge, said the first indication that
something was wrong was when she heard that someone had been stabbed in the
proximity of London Bridge.

“Then we heard gunshots, and people started to hide beneath
the tables,” Alcolea said. “We locked ourselves in the office. From the window,
I could see an injured person being treated by emergency personnel. Then the
police came in and told us to run. Everyone was panicking.”

As Alcolea recounted her story, she saw two friends who
she had lost track of during the melee. She cried and hugged them as they
reunited outside a police cordon.

Chris Jacobs, 52, and his wife Kavita Jacobs, 49, were woken
up by police officers banging on their door on the third floor of an apartment
building at Borough Market. 

“I heard gunshots as we left the building,” said Chris
Jacobs, who stood next to a petrol station outside the cordon, with no shoes on
and holding his dog.

Alex Shellum, an eyewitness, told the BBC he was at the
Mudlark pub in the London Bridge area when at around 10 p.m. “a woman
probably in her early 20s staggered into the pub and she was bleeding heavily
from the neck and from her mouth. It appeared to myself and my friends that her
throat had been cut.”

Another witness, identified by the BBC as Gerard, said he
saw three men running with knives: “They said, ‘This is for Allah. Then they
ran up and stabbed this girl, I don’t know how many times, 10 times, maybe 15
times.”

He said he and others threw whatever objects they could find
— including bottles, glasses and chairs — at the attackers in a futile attempt
to stop the rampage.

Within minutes of the attack, dozens of police cars sped to
London Bridge and to Borough Market, with helicopters hovering overhead. Police
closed the bridge and urged the public to avoid the area.

The incident caused chaos in the heart of London in an area
normally bustling on a Saturday night. Pedestrians near the bridge said they
were ordered by police to run, and video footage showed people fleeing in a
panic. Other images showed members of the public being escorted away from the
bridge by police with hands on their heads.

Two hours after the incidents began, police were still
widening cordons and pushing bystanders farther back from the scenes, as the
sound of explosions — apparently controlled blasts carried out by police —
echoed through the night.

British leaders scrambled to respond to the attacks. 

May, a Conservative Party member who had been out
campaigning ahead of an election slated for Thursday, returned to Downing
Street and was being briefed by security officials.

Jeremy Corbyn, leader of the opposition Labour Party, said
on Twitter: “Brutal and shocking incidents reported in London. My thoughts are
with the victims and their families. Thank you to the emergency services.”

President Trump was briefed on the incident, and immediately
took to Twitter to say: “We need to be smart, vigilant and tough. We need the
courts to give us back our rights. We need the Travel Ban as an extra level of
safety!”

After taking criticism online for trying to use the attack
to advance a policy goal that is now under review in the courts, he sent a
follow-up tweet minutes later: “Whatever the United States can do to help
out in London and the U. K., we will be there — WE ARE WITH YOU. GOD BLESS!”

The White House later issued a statement saying Trump and
May had spoken by phone and that the U.S. president had “offered his
condolences for the brutal terrorist attacks.”

A spokesman for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security
said the agency was monitoring the incidents in London. 

“At this time, we have no information to indicate a
specific, credible terror threat in the United States,” the spokesman said.

Keyword: London, london bridge, london attack, london bridge
attack, london news, london terror attack, time in london, london time, london
attacks, london has fallen, what happened in london