What It Really Takes to Hold Powerful, High-Profile Sexual Abusers Accountable

Featuring Kristen Feden — prosecutor, civil litigator, and the attorney who helped convict Bill Cosby and secured civil verdicts against R. Kelly totaling more than $32 million in a single day.

Matt Dolman: Welcome to another episode of David versus Goliath podcast. We have an A-lister with us today. We got the lovely, talented, and beautiful Kristen Feden joining my partner in crime, Stan Gipe on our podcast. Kristen, welcome aboard.

Kristen Feden: Thank you. The pleasure is all mine. I'm so excited to engage on this.

Matt Dolman: It's not every day we get the prosecutor who put Bill Cosby away and has a verdict against R. Kelly. I mean, literally, we normally get boos and hobos coming through here, so this is a big moment for us. I'm not quite sure how to handle myself. Stan, what do we want to lead off with? What do we want to talk about today? Do we want to talk about the Alexander brothers? Do we want to talk about R. Kelly, Bill Cosby?

Stan Gipe: Bill Cosby. I mean, Kristen, okay, I can tell you Cosby has ruined memories I had of childhood from long before she was born, right? I remember Picture Pages and Pudding Pops, right? In the late 70s into the early 80s, I have core memories of which couch I was sitting on in my grandparents' house watching Bill Cosby. Hey, will he do another picture page with you? I can talk about pulling out my crayons and pencils. I know the theme song to it. And then this man rolls into Pudding Pops, right? And through the 80s, it was Bill Cosby and Pudding Pops, right? And then this man rolls into the 90s and becomes America's dad, right? You've got Mr. Huxtable. There is no more wholesome person in the world. And then I know for the first time I hear that this man's been accused of sex assault and I think no way, right? This has to be a money grab. So I want to know — R. Kelly, right? Knock him out, right? We kind of suspect he might be. How in the hell do you walk in to prosecuting America's dad for a sex assault claim when everyone's first thought has to be no damn way?

Kristen Feden: Yeah. No, exactly. And listen, those were my memories too. In fact, my daddy — God bless his soul — he was a physician. There's four of us running around, so I'm one of four. And so people used to call us the Huxtables growing up. So when I was called into my boss's office many years ago as a prosecutor — very experienced prosecutor at that point because I had done tons of crimes, I had prosecuted homicides, including a capital homicide case — she called me in her office and she asked me to deliver a letter. And I'm like, sure. I would never say no to my boss, but I'm thinking to myself, why aren't one of the detectives delivering a letter? I have trials that I have to prep for. So I said, may I ask what this letter is in reference to? I'd be happy to deliver it wherever you need it to go. And she was like, oh yeah, we're going to open up an investigation into Bill Cosby. And then she turns around as if it was just Joe Schmo. I was like, my jaw is now to the ground. I was like, I'm sorry, who? And yes, I thought the same thing, Stan. I'm like, there's no way. But listen, as a prosecutor, you don't look left or right. You follow the evidence, and that's all where your eyes go. And when I started seeing one piece of evidence after another piece of evidence after another piece of evidence, all my memories faded. It was awful.

Matt Dolman: So I read your Wikipedia page today. Most of our guests don't have Wikipedia pages. Let's start there. So on your Wikipedia page — like how the hell did you get a Wikipedia page? You got to be a celebrity. So on your Wikipedia page, the first trial ended up in a mistrial, then you were called in as a special prosecutor. You had already gone to private practice and came back. You did the closing argument and much of the trial in the second round. So take us through those two cases. What was different the second time around?

Kristen Feden: Yeah, on the first trial, I played a large role. Obviously I was one of the initial investigators — meaning even though I was a prosecutor, that is part of our job. We are not only a litigator, but we're also an investigator. So in the first trial, I had done the entire investigation, was there for every pre-trial motion and hearing, delivered the opening argument, and my role really was to direct examine the survivor, who was Andrea Constand. In that particular case, we only were permitted to have one prior act witness. And a prior act witness — just for the audience — is someone who has suffered something very similar. So in that case, she was also drugged and sexually assaulted by Bill Cosby. And so we put on that evidence.

Matt Dolman: Time out for one sec. I'm not a criminal defense lawyer. Is that common that they only limit you to one? Is that an outlier?

Kristen Feden: Yeah, it differs per state. But in the state of Pennsylvania, it is purely discretionary with the judge. They go through a number of balancing factors. In the first trial, we actually were only permitted one prior act witness and the judge balances it based on the testimony. So if the testimony kind of precludes — the court doesn't want many trials within a trial, right? And so if the one testimony and the court deems that that was sufficient enough and that additional evidence could be deemed cumulative, meaning repeat after repeat, or prejudicial, the court's going to say stop, no more prior act witnesses. And so we were only allowed to call one in the first trial, but we actually called five in the second trial. And so that was one of the major differences between the first and the second.

And I know this podcast is national, but give me two seconds to give some Philly love. The major difference between the two trials was the defense attorney. The defense attorney in the first trial — I had tried many cases with him. He is a phenomenal trial lawyer. He is fantastic. You may know him from representing Meek Mill and some other big-named people. Brian McMonagle represented Bill Cosby, and let me tell you, I say this all the time — his closing argument in that particular case, he probably talked about the case for five minutes of his like 45-minute closing argument. He is that charismatic that the jury just fell in love with him. I believe we did poll the jury and it was like 10 to convict, two not to. And in a criminal trial, that is a mistrial, right? You've got to get every single person to vote to convict. Very different from civil.

In the second trial, they actually had Michael Jackson's old attorneys. And Michael Jackson's old attorneys actually called a number of witnesses. Brian McMonagle in the first trial put on no witnesses and said we're done. Michael Jackson's old attorney called a number of witnesses and they really — I don't think — played out as well to the jury. And I think that was kind of one of the major differences. But I will tell you one of the common threads throughout the entirety of both trials was Andrea Constand, who is the survivor in that particular case. She is just so authentic. At that point in the trial, she had actually reported it in 2004 before, and the office declined prosecution in 2005. And so when we were ready to prosecute — when I was called into my boss's office, that was like 2014 — so she had already had 10 years of healing. She also had the opportunity to sue him civilly and get a civil judgment of what she was entitled to. So she had nothing to gain by testifying and everything to lose because these cases are very invasive to people's privacy. And so I always say she was the common thread because we could not have done it without her.

Matt Dolman: How was Cosby on the — did he take the stand?

Kristen Feden: No, he did not take the stand. What was his demeanor like? You're sitting there, he's right across from you. What was that like?

Matt Dolman: What was that like?

Kristen Feden: It was insane. It was really crazy because he was blind, so he would look off, but you weren't certain where he was looking or if he could see the items or objects in the direction that he was gazing. So that was kind of odd. But listen, he was fully competent, cognizant, saying things the entire time. During my closing argument, he laughed, which you know set me off. But he was fully aware of everything even though I don't believe he could fully see everything.

Matt Dolman: Was his wife there too?

Kristen Feden: She came for both closing arguments.

Stan Gipe: And Rudy came for the opening. Rudy was there.

Matt Dolman: Oh boy.

Stan Gipe: Let me ask you — when you first start this trial and you're walking into a courtroom, how many jurors do you need to actually find an impartial jury to judge Bill Cosby? Because I mean, like I've always wondered this. I've never had a celebrity trial, right? But you always want to find a panel of jurors who know nothing about your plaintiff, know nothing about the defendant, right? And basically, if you're going to find people who've never heard of Bill Cosby, do you really want them trying a case because they're not in touch with society? They're just under some rock somewhere. How do you go about doing that?

Kristen Feden: It was difficult, Stan. But for the first trial, the defense attorney actually raised a legal issue essentially saying hey, we can't get a fair trial here in Montgomery County where the sexual assault occurred. We need to move it somewhere else. So as prosecutors, we're like listen, we want you to have a fair trial. We didn't oppose the motion. We let the Supreme Court decide where they want us to try this case, or rather where they want us to pull a jury from. And the Supreme Court said you can pick a jury in Allegheny County. And so we packed our bags. We went to Allegheny County and went out there to pick a jury. We picked — for the first trial — we spent about three days picking a jury, which to me is not that long of a time considering it was a celebrity jury. But to your point, I think it was the second jury trial — the very first trial, everyone knew who he was. And as you know, Stan, that's not the question to strike them. The real question is knowing him and knowing what you know of him, are you able to put all of that knowledge aside and judge him based on everything you see here, just based on the evidence that you see at trial? So that's what we had to go off on. And as lawyers, what we then do is be like, I don't know, this person has this background. I don't think they can be fair and impartial even though they said that they could. So we did actually ask some prosecutors who were skilled and seasoned prosecutors in Allegheny County — because we didn't know that jury pool, we knew Montgomery County — to kind of sit with us and help us pick that jury. But to your point, Stan, for that second trial, they did not raise that as an argument, withdrew it. So we actually picked a Montgomery County jury. And so there was one person who said I don't know who Bill Cosby is. And he was younger. So I'm like, really? I was like there's no way. You don't know Bill Cosby? Come on. And keep in mind at that point, even though he was young, maybe he didn't know Bill Cosby, but this was the second time he had been tried. You had to know.

Stan Gipe: By the way, going back a second — why would you get an impartial jury in Allegheny County being that Philadelphia is the closest media center, so you're getting your news from Philadelphia news. Bill Cosby is ubiquitous. Everybody knows who Bill Cosby is. Why would he get an impartial jury in Allegheny versus Montgomery County? I don't really get that.

Kristen Feden: I argue — I know the reasoning that they said, and I don't agree with it — is because he was charged in Montgomery County. Putting aside the obvious legitimate counterargument, which is like he's a national figure, the news is everywhere, they said the news was based in Montgomery County. The only three counties that were similar — because the Supreme Court selects the alternative venue and in their selection they have to look at demographics, they have to look at population, they have to look at a number of things — and Philadelphia would have been a similar jurisdiction and so would Allegheny County. But because Philly feeds off of Montgomery County news because we border one another, they went with Allegheny.

Matt Dolman: What is Montgomery? It's like the main line.

Kristen Feden: Yes, you got it.

Matt Dolman: Okay, I understand. So Kristen, you kind of brought it up a little bit — when you've got someone like Bill Cosby, when you've got someone that's a famous celebrity, they've got essentially unlimited resources to spend to defend themselves in a case, right? You're still the government. It's not like suddenly things change for you because of the defendant. It's one thing when you go hey, it's Kristen versus Stan. It's another thing because you have Bill Cosby resources. But if you sit there and you're fighting a whole team like that, how do you do that? And at the end of the day, pardon the French, but it's got to make you feel good when you kick their ass.

Kristen Feden: It does. It does. But to your point, it was miserable. The first trial only lasted about like one week, two weeks, but the second trial lasted like a month, which I know in the civil and particularly federal civil world is not that long. But we're in court every single day from start to finish. As a prosecutor — to your point, Stan — I have 200 other cases. And because I handle homicides, sex crimes, child pornography cases along that nature, a lot of my cases also have survivors who want to know what's going on with their cases, who want to know when the next court date is, who want to know what they need. And as a prosecutor, no one's doing my job when I'm in trial. So it would be the most craziest thing where we would literally walk into the judge's chambers to talk about okay, what's happening tomorrow, what will be the agenda, what witnesses you're calling, the normal stuff after court. And we would literally walk out of the courtroom, check our phone, and they would have filed a million different motions that we now have to go read, research, and be able to respond to the next day before that particular witness or that particular piece of evidence was called in. So even during the investigation, every pre-trial issue that you could think of — including recusing the main prosecutor, not me, but the DA at the time — it was just unheard of. But one of the keys — and I always kind of joke — our appellate team was phenomenal. So in the DA's office, we have your trial litigators, but then you also have an appellate team, and mind you, like two people, but they are some of the smartest people in the world. Let me tell you. So they actually sat there at trial with us. They handled a lot of the pre-trial hearings, a lot — definitely all — of the briefings pretty much. And I always joke that, Matt, you asked me earlier what was the difference between the two trials, why did you get one versus five in the second trial when we're talking about prior act witnesses? And I always say it's because me and my other colleague argued the motion in the first trial and the appellate team argued it in the second trial. And so I always say those are the ones you really want arguing your motions.

Matt Dolman: I get that point. Going back — and this is going to be completely ignorant because I never worked for the government — but when you're on such a high-profile trial, they don't assign someone to help you out with your other ongoing cases?

Kristen Feden: I will say we all worked as a team though. So I had a lot of colleagues jump in and assist. But when you're dealing with clients who have suffered such a major tragedy such as the loss of a loved one or sexual assault or aggravated assault, they want to talk to you. They don't want to talk to other people. So my thought was always, as a government servant, if something happened to me or my mom or my child, I want to talk to who's in charge of that case. And so I wanted to always put that forward to those individuals. And just being on another case — even though the defendant happened to be a high-profile individual — should not deter my goals and the assistance that I offered to them. So yes, people offered to help, but there were certain cases where I'm like, I've got to do this myself.

Matt Dolman: Did the survivors you were representing at the time in your other cases — did they have a lot more confidence in you knowing that you had been the prosecutor tasked with putting Bill Cosby behind bars?

Kristen Feden: So yes, during the first trial they had no idea. But the second trial was a little different because I was a special. And so what I would do — when I would get calls — you left the DA's office, I want the Cosby prosecutor on my case. I did get a couple of those calls. But it put me much more in demand afterwards in private practice, of course.

Matt Dolman: So then take us to R. Kelly. How did you get involved in the R. Kelly case? I know you handled the civil case.

Kristen Feden: Yeah. So the R. Kelly case — I really was a fanboy about your background. I know it better than your husband does. But you had two verdicts the same day.

Matt Dolman: I did. And Stan and I were sitting there. We put our big thinking caps on. So one was in deliberation for a couple weeks while you tried the other one.

Kristen Feden: Well here was the thing. They were bench verdicts, not jury verdicts. So the judge took a million years to come out with one decision, then the other judge took a million years to come out with the other. And it just so happened that both came in — they were both New York — and so in New York jurisdiction it comes in through your email. And I happened to get them on the same day. So two different judges. A $22 million, the other one's a $10.5, and you got them the same day.

Stan Gipe: You went out for a nice dinner that night.

Kristen Feden: I did. I was like wow. But I will say one of the most rewarding parts was I got to call like seven different — because the R. Kelly was the $10.5, but it was for six people. The $22 million was only for one. So I got to call six different survivors, all of whom I represented. It was nice to be able to deliver that.

Matt Dolman: So this is — what type of case was this in New York?

Kristen Feden: Yeah, he was a pediatrician. He was sexually abusing all of his pediatric patients.

Matt Dolman: Pediatrician. That's even — not that any degree — they're all awful, all just heinous. These are all animals. But yes, that's just unbelievable. I'm sorry.

Kristen Feden: Yeah. No, I just got a quick question — some of the issues you deal with, especially with respect to women's sexual rights and violations and stuff like that. Over time we become more enlightened as a society. Our positions, our feelings as a society change and move. You know whereas the 70s, 80s, maybe even into the 90s, the casting couch might have been a thing and it might have been kind of accepted. Now, as we move as a society, people are like oh no, no, that's not an acceptable way to do business. And you're helping move the needle. This is an actively moving needle. This isn't static.

Stan Gipe: But let me ask — a lot of people, I'm sure, praise you and women are like thank you, thank you for what you're doing and helping. Have you had any sort of negative backlash? Has anyone ever reached out and been like I can't believe you did this?

Kristen Feden: Oh my gosh. Yes. Actually all the time. And actually give you a crazy story. Bill Cosby — as a prosecutor, your email, your phone number, it's not really publicly available. But I was in private practice for the second trial, and that's the one where he was convicted. I had people say all sorts of crazy things to me and put them online in the comments. My husband was like please don't read the comments section. And the thing is, the reason he told me not to read is because he knows I see red really quickly and I will confront you. And I had one guy — actually a lot of people — but one guy actually emailed me and was like I hope you die. I hope you and your whole family die and all this other things. I called him up really quickly because he had his phone number. I probably was less professional in what I said to him and he jumped on the phone. When I was done with him, he apologized. The point is is that people say a lot of things because they don't know that they're dealing with individuals. It's super easy to type something and not have to know who you're talking to. That phone call was really revealing to me because it also reminded me — these people don't know me. They don't know what I do. They don't know my heart. And so I'm just going to do what I do because I think that it's the right thing. And there's just a lot of backlash as you know when you try to do the right thing.

Stan Gipe: What was his anger about? You're taking down America's dad. What did he say to you?

Kristen Feden: He was like do you know who Bill Cosby is? He said all this stuff like as a Black woman, you should be ashamed of yourself. I was like did you hear about the pound cake speech? Did you know he actually made a speech about how most Black men deserve to be in jail? Not because they commit crimes, but because they wear their pants down low. And did you ever hear about the speech where he's talking about Black women? Oh, I went off. I went off. Don't try to come at me with history. So I just kind of let him know. I tried to educate him.

Matt Dolman: He's a scumbag though. He's a sexual deviant.

Kristen Feden: Totally. And the other thing to point out too, Matt and Stan, is for both trials, I made sure that Black women testified. He did not just sexually assault white women. And I think that was a major thing — because a lot of times when there is a Black man standing accused of sexually assaulting a white woman — and Andrea Constand was a white woman — race absolutely comes into play even if you don't want it to. And I say race comes into play because jurors don't leave anything at the door. They bring forth their life experiences. And we can't erase or eliminate the fact that Emmett Till died in a very similar fashion. And so that's why in the first trial the prior act witness was a Black woman, and in the second trial, out of the five prior act witnesses, two of them were Black. So I wanted to make sure that there would be no underlying theme of they're just trying to take a good Black man down. Because no, we weren't. We were only trying to take a sexual predator down. And that message, I think, was very clear in both trials just by calling other women of different races to show that message without saying it. It's a subtle message that you as a trial attorney have to kind of be aware of — what the perceptions will be.

Matt Dolman: Now I've looked a little bit at this and your victim in this case, Andrea Constand, she appeared to be a very very strong person. When I'm looking at her from the outside — never met her obviously, looking at stuff — but when you see the articles, you see the photos, you see the way she presents herself, holds herself, she's facing cameras and out there. How much do you think that played a role in being able to convict him? Because it's really really hard for someone as a victim to come out there and say it herself. Especially the first time out — oh this money grab, something like this, right? And she has gotten some money, she got millions of dollars for this. So from her perspective, did she tell you what it was like for her to go through that?

Kristen Feden: It was tough. She's very very strong. She puts on this wonderful face. And she was — keep in mind she's an athlete. She's a college athlete and played overseas. So her thing — I loved this — she says, and if you're a basketball player you'll understand this reference: always follow through, right? You follow through in your shot. You follow through to make sure that the aim is appropriate and you get those two points and maybe even the three. That was her motto throughout. I'm going to always follow through. When they declined charges, our office was not very nice to her. They didn't even let her know — the DA went on TV. She found out on TV that they were not prosecuting her case. And then the fact that she trusted us again — even though it was different people, it's still the same office — and she's not even from our country. She's from Canada. So she was willing to come over here to our country and stand that type of scrutiny. Not once but twice. She was nervous. She's very meditative and homeopathic driven. She's just such a beautiful person inside. And even when they took breaks during her testimony, she had her little rocks, her meditative rocks, and would just breathe. It was just really refreshing because I was so nervous. But I'm like this is what I do every day. This is not something she does every day. And she's getting such scrutiny that she doesn't deserve. So to your point, she's just such a strong person inside and out and most importantly just a loving person.

We were looking at a recent award for Donna Russel — who was also I believe at the trial. I know that we've spoken to her throughout the investigation. I bring her up because she has a multi-million dollar judgment civilly against Bill Cosby most recently. And I sent her the article and she was like I'm so excited. I was like girl, you started this. You literally started this. And so she's just such a powerful person.

Matt Dolman: That's awesome. Let's transition to the Alexander brothers. I know you're working on that case. Those are two deviant — I don't have a word that properly sums them up. We heard about this — it's a little bit of a transition — but I know a number of individuals who are in Miami society or hanging out with the uber wealthy people in Miami and they'd come across the Alexander brothers. There were whispers about them in the community for years that had circulated. They were very handy with females, inappropriate, that they had these strange parties. And then I know that you're handling some of those civil cases. Tell us about what you can actually speak to, what you've learned about the Alexander brothers, because these are some of the most heinous monsters that I've at least read about. And there's a pattern of this. You know where there's smoke there's fire. I think there's over 40 women who've come forward now. Might even be more than that. I know there's some civil lawyers beside yourself, also a couple in New York who have been handling these cases for several years now. And talk about having all the resources in the world. These guys had millions and millions of dollars. Still, I think they still do. So tell us about those cases.

Kristen Feden: Those cases are just equally as horrific and they have, like you said, endless resources — a team of attorneys to basically file every motion, circumvent the system in any way that they can. I'm so thankful that the conviction came through. Conviction of guilty on all counts.

Matt Dolman: That's two weeks ago. Huge. Because as you guys know, that renders — if you're suing them individually — that renders that civil trial null and void. Pretty much it's just going to be an inquest if it's in New York, or an assessment of damages trial, because there is already a finding of that intentional tort.

Kristen Feden: And so those cases are going to be a little bit easier, if you will. But there's other cases where he has not been charged for the underlying contact — or they have not been charged for the underlying contact. But yet you see that common theme that you pointed out, Matt — it's the drugging, it's the raping. In most cases it's the three of them working in concert to essentially take a woman, fly her into this other spot, and then sexually assault her. And you know, essentially what you see — and you see it throughout all of these sex abuse cases — you see individuals using their power, which sometimes is defined by their wealth and their status in society, and stripping a person, whether it be a female or a male or a them, of their autonomy. And most people think to themselves — and I hear this all the time and I think it's important to address — they're super rich. Why would they want to rape somebody? They can get any woman in the world. Sometimes it's not about that. Rape is never about sexual gratification. It is about the power. I want that and I want that now and I'm going to take it. Yeah, it's just absolutely horrific.

Stan Gipe: Yeah, it was case after case where the women had no recollection how they wound up there, let alone what happened to them. Very just awful. And you see that so frequently when sexual assault is facilitated through the ingestion of an intoxicant. And a lot of times these women will blame themselves — I shouldn't have drank so much — not realizing that it really wasn't the quantity by which they drank. It's that somebody slipped something unbeknownst to them in their drink. But nevertheless, whether they drank too much or they went to the wrong spot, it is not an invitation for sexual assault. But a lot of that blame and humiliation kind of forces them to want to conceal it and not speak up.

Kristen Feden: That's so sad. Awful.

Matt Dolman: Will they be able to get their pound of flesh? Will there be compensation at the end of the road? Do we know what they have in terms of their finances?

Kristen Feden: Yeah. So they have so much wealth, I can't imagine that the legal fees have eaten it up or anywhere close to it. But one of the things I'm uncertain about as of right now is whether or not the money is tied up in different corporations and not into them individually. So that's the one thing I'm looking into as we prepare to sue them. You have the real estate agency with the two brothers and then you have the security business with the one brother. So between both of those companies, trying to attribute or impute liability on those — that kind of is dependent upon the survivor and what they experienced. But with regard to even getting into court, not even being heard on the merits, we have statute issues left and right because a lot of these assaults happened so many years ago. And while New York, where a lot of the sexual assaults have occurred, have done major things in terms of reform and statute of limitation elimination or revival windows, there's still a lot of appellate issues — at least two of my survivor clients are experiencing now. So we'll see if they're even going to be able to have their day in court.

Matt Dolman: Do you have any element of really educating victims in society about what a sexual assault is? Because it's not easily defined. I think you'll find a lot of women particularly will be enamored by someone, get into a situation, and then maybe not realize that anything short of yes is no, right? You know, you end up in a situation and they get — they're doing something they don't want to do. Someone takes advantage of them, forces them over an edge they didn't want to get to. That even if you put yourself in a situation, that doesn't mean you've agreed to be sexually assaulted. You as a person can say no at any point during this process. You've never gotten to a point where you don't have the right to refuse. Right? Is that something that sometimes you have to make sure society and people understand — that just because you went there and it was late and it might have been expected, you still have the right to refuse and it shouldn't have happened to you?

Kristen Feden: You got it. Exactly. And actually I do a lot of nonprofit work around that topic. I do believe that it is something that we have to start when the kids are young. You can't go and say to a three-year-old don't sexually assault. But you could talk about good touch, bad touch. You could talk about — and even then when my kids were growing up, it was if anybody touches you, let mommy know because I want to be the one who can assess. But to your point, yes. And it's so important. The work that the three of us do is getting that word out. When you sue people, you are putting them on public blast that this behavior is not acceptable. That is one form of educating people. Another form of educating people is going into the schools and talking to them about consent. Making sure people are consenting. Making sure that if you see someone has too much to drink, you are not going any further in terms of any sexual contact. And just making sure that everyone is a consenting party. And I think it's really shifting the mindset. Because the question shouldn't be did she say no? The question should be did she say yes?

Stan Gipe: Right. Exactly.

Matt Dolman: So quick transition. I know you handle sexual abuse cases nationwide. Can you speak to survivors under a lookback statute, under a revival window? How do you educate survivors that they may still have a valid claim despite the fact that the abuse occurred years ago, possibly even decades ago?

Kristen Feden: Yeah. So even that $22 million judgment that I got on the same day as the R. Kelly verdict — that was a revival case. That was a case that was filed under the Child Victims Act. And in that particular case, to your point, educating people — when I got the first call, it was three different of his patients and they were like listen, I don't know that we have a case. We have no evidence at all. But what we can tell you is that I don't know these other two ladies, but we were all sexually assaulted by the same pediatrician. When we started looking into that case, I probably spoke to about 200 different women who had been sexually assaulted and ultimately we filed 105 cases. And the only reason we didn't file all 200 is because some people don't want to go forward with litigation, understandably. And so we filed every single claim. One thing I always tell people is listen — if you are interested in filing a civil lawsuit, call an attorney because they may be able to find the evidence that you don't think exists. When we started uncovering things, we found all sorts of things like police reports that those three had no idea about. They never charged him, but there were still police reports out there and we were able to find additional witnesses. And so there are different things that we can do through the court system, through different legal avenues like FOYER requests or freedom of information — getting information from governmental entities — that people who aren't in this field don't know exist. So if somebody says hey, this happened so long ago, I would still encourage them, if it's what they want to do, to pursue litigation. Go to the police if that's what they want to do. Some people do not want to go to law enforcement. I don't pass judgment on them. But call an attorney. Figure out whether or not you have a claim and if so, what's the best way to gather enough evidence to file a lawsuit.

Matt Dolman: So Stan, Kristen texted me this morning. She was nervous to appear on the podcast because — I know she's full of it. You're just trying to humor me. But we're at minute 40 and I have like four topics I haven't even hit on. Usually we're at minute 15 wondering what else we're going to talk about. So do you like the color blue? We got to wrap up soon. I want to — a project that I guess we're all working on together, which is Roblox. And I think Roblox is a segue into other platforms like Discord. And we're seeing this across — I mean it's uniform across all these platforms — they're almost like havens for pedophiles. They're fertile hunting grounds for the sick and deviant where there's very little policing involved in terms of moderation. I want to be careful because it's not about the content. We want to avoid Section 230 and I don't want to bore people about legalese, but it's the construct of these platforms — they were never safe in their intended purpose. Like nowhere is it normal for adults to speak to children that are not related to them, but that goes on all day long unabated on these stupid platforms. What are your thoughts about the Roblox case? Because this is different than what you normally handle.

Kristen Feden: Totally. But to your point, it is so similar to what we handle, but very different. Why is it similar? Because we're talking about a defect in design that is so clear as day. But yet the big companies like a Roblox, like a Discord, they continue with these defective designs. Why? For the money. They want to onboard as many people as possible. Exactly. So they don't care that the parental controls are hidden and that parents don't have full access to them. They don't care that they like to say hey, we don't have these perpetrators on there. But yet they allow these same perpetrators — some of which have been convicted — to go and make account after account after account on a platform that is marketed for children. Literally they're little blocks. They don't care that there were literally Diddy sites — Puff Daddy, Sean Puffy Combs, who was just convicted of sex trafficking. They don't care that there were Epstein — and I understand what you're saying with regard to moderation — but the product itself is defective because they don't do the age verification. They essentially, as you pointed out, are a hunting ground because what they're doing is because they fail to put the proper safeguards in place, they are enabling sexual predators to meet children. And in some cases what results is predatory grooming. But in some cases what also results is child sexual abuse material, which is out there forever to be exchanged. Sometimes it leads to kidnapping and sexually assaulting these children. We both have some of those cases right now. It's horrific. Exactly. And they don't care.

Matt Dolman: How did you not know that that was going to go wrong? Like how do you not know the train's going to go off the tracks when you're offering Robux as a form of currency that adults can hold over a child's head — that they'll pay you — to the adolescent mind that's still developing and can't appreciate or contemplate the danger involved with, I don't know, sharing a photo of their genitalia in exchange for 100 bucks. You know, you ask mom and dad for 100 bucks when you're a child, they're going to tell you to pound sand. But you ask for $100 on a Roblox platform, there's some deviant out there that's going to give you 100 bucks for a picture of their — it's just like how did you not realize this is going to go wrong?

Kristen Feden: By the way, you can curse on this podcast. It's a sick deviant world that we live in. Sad.

Stan Gipe: Even if you don't realize it, right, once you see it is going wrong — how many kids need to be kidnapped? How many kids need to be raped before you go wait, there's some unintended consequences going on here? Okay. If every pedophile on the internet knows to go to Roblox, how does Roblox not know to stop them?

Kristen Feden: Yeah, great point. And how's this creep David Baszucki — the CEO — he goes on a podcast and what does he say? That this is a great opportunity. He called sexual deviation and predatory behavior and predation of children a great opportunity for Roblox. What did you think was happening in your company? Like really. Nothing speaks better to the corporate culture at Roblox.

Matt Dolman: Any final questions or comments, Stan, before we wrap up? We got to let Kristen get back to all of her clients.

Stan Gipe: I could probably talk to Kristen for hours just about some of the fascinating things she — I would love that over a beer. We also want you to come in and try a couple of cases with us.

Kristen Feden: Absolutely. It would be a dream — for me, not for you.

Matt Dolman: She says that to everybody. She wants a referral. We dream of the opportunity to get Kristen Feden to try one of our cases.

Kristen Feden: I would totally do it with you guys. With us. We want to learn from you. I think we're damn good, but I think you're even better.

Matt Dolman: So I want to wrap this up. Stan, you want to give the farewell to everyone and wrap this episode up?

Stan Gipe: Before we go, you've got to tell us — how do people get a hold of Kristen Feden? Like they want Kristen Feden in their case. And I'll tell you, if they call our office and they look for you, we're going to pass it along. How do we get a hold of you, Kristen?

Kristen Feden: All you have to do is Google me. You can find my website, my phone number, my email. All of my information is right on there.

Matt Dolman: All right. So this has been one of our most fun episodes we've ever done and one of the most entertaining. I'm Stan G. This is my partner Matt Dolman and we are very honored to be wrapping up another edition of the David versus Goliath podcast with our esteemed guest Kristen Feden. I hope you guys have enjoyed this as much as we have because this has been an extreme pleasure for me. I can tell Matt's enjoyed it too. Kristen, we really really appreciate getting almost an hour of your time telling us some of the insights into some of the things we've read about on a national basis for years. So I really appreciate getting a look behind the curtain on some of this.

Kristen Feden: Thank you. The pleasure was all mine. I really appreciate you guys having me on your wonderful podcast. Thank you.

Kristen Feden: Thank you. The pleasure is all mine. I'm so excited to be here.

Matt Dolman: It's not every day we get the prosecutor who put Bill Cosby away and secured a verdict against R. Kelly. We normally get a more modest caliber of guest, so this is a significant moment for us. Stan, where do we start?

Stan Gipe: Bill Cosby. Kristen, he ruined memories I had of childhood. Picture Pages. Pudding Pops. America's dad. And then this man turns out to be who he is. How do you walk into a courtroom to prosecute someone like that when everyone's first reaction has to be: there is no way?

Kristen Feden: Those were my memories too. My father was a physician. Growing up, people used to call us the Huxtables. So when I was called into my boss's office — I was already an experienced prosecutor at that point, having tried homicides including a capital case — and she asked me to deliver a letter connected to an investigation into Bill Cosby, my jaw hit the floor. I said: I'm sorry, who?

As a prosecutor, you don't look left or right. You follow the evidence. And when I started seeing one piece of evidence after another, all of those memories faded. It was awful.

Matt Dolman: Your Wikipedia page — which most of our guests do not have — says the first trial ended in a mistrial, and then you were brought back as a special prosecutor for the second. Take us through what was different between the two.

Kristen Feden: In the first trial, I led the investigation, handled every pre-trial motion and hearing, delivered the opening argument, and directly examined Andrea Constand — the survivor. We were only permitted one prior act witness. A prior act witness, for the audience, is someone who suffered something very similar — in this case, also drugged and sexually assaulted by Cosby. In Pennsylvania, the number of prior act witnesses is purely discretionary with the judge. They weigh whether additional testimony would be cumulative or prejudicial. In the first trial, one was deemed sufficient.

In the second trial, we called five.

The other significant difference was the defense attorney. In the first trial, Brian McMonagle represented Cosby. He is a phenomenal trial lawyer — one of the best I have ever faced. He spent approximately five minutes of his closing argument actually addressing the facts of the case. He is that charismatic. The jury fell in love with him. When we polled the jury afterward, it was ten to convict, two not to. In a criminal trial, that is a mistrial. You need every single juror.

In the second trial, the defense brought in Michael Jackson's former attorneys. They called a number of witnesses, which I don't think played as well with the jury. But the common thread through both trials was Andrea Constand. She had reported the assault in 2004. The office declined prosecution in 2005 — and she found out by watching it on television. By the time we were ready to prosecute again, she had already had ten years of healing. She had nothing to gain by testifying and everything to lose. We could not have done it without her.

Stan Gipe: What was Cosby's demeanor like in the courtroom?

Kristen Feden: It was surreal. He was blind, so he would look off in different directions — you couldn't always be certain where he was gazing or what he could see. But he was fully competent and fully cognizant throughout. During my closing argument, he laughed. That set me off. But he was aware of everything happening in that courtroom, even if he couldn't fully see it.

Matt Dolman: Was his wife there?

Kristen Feden: She came for both closing arguments. And Rudy — Rudy Cosby was there for the opening.

Stan Gipe: How do you find an impartial jury for someone like Bill Cosby? Because if you find someone who has genuinely never heard of him, do you even want them deciding the case?

Kristen Feden: It was difficult. In the first trial, the defense raised the argument that they couldn't get a fair trial in Montgomery County — where the assault occurred — and asked to move venue. We didn't oppose the motion. The Supreme Court decided the jury would be pulled from Allegheny County. We spent about three days selecting that jury, which honestly isn't long for a celebrity case.

The real question during jury selection isn't whether jurors know who the defendant is. It's whether, knowing what they know, they can set it aside and judge him based solely on the evidence presented at trial. That's what we had to work with.

For the second trial, the defense withdrew the venue argument. We picked a Montgomery County jury. One juror said he didn't know who Bill Cosby was. He was younger. I did not believe him.

Matt Dolman: You're still the government. You have 200 other cases. They have unlimited resources. How do you manage that imbalance?

Kristen Feden: It was miserable, honestly. The first trial lasted about a week or two. The second lasted a month. As a prosecutor, no one covers your other cases while you're in trial. I was simultaneously handling homicides, sex crimes, and child exploitation cases — all with survivors who want to hear from you directly, not from someone else on the team.

Every night after court, we would check our phones and find a stack of new motions filed by the defense that we had to read, research, and respond to before the next morning's proceedings. Every pre-trial issue you can think of came up — including a motion to recuse the DA. It was extraordinary in the most exhausting sense of the word.

One saving grace was our appellate team — two people, but some of the sharpest legal minds I have ever worked with. They sat with us at trial, handled pre-trial hearings, and managed most of the briefing. I always say we got five prior act witnesses in the second trial in part because the appellate team argued that motion instead of us.

Matt Dolman: Take us to R. Kelly. How did you get involved in those civil cases?

Kristen Feden: The R. Kelly cases came while I was in private practice. What I remember most about that chapter is the day I received two bench verdicts in the same afternoon. Two different judges. Two different cases. Both in New York. Both delivered to my inbox on the same day.

A $22 million verdict for one survivor. A $10.5 million verdict for six survivors — patients of a pediatrician who had been sexually abusing the children in his medical care. Seven phone calls to make. Seven survivors to tell.

The $22 million case was filed under the Child Victims Act — a revival statute that reopened the window for claims that would otherwise have been time-barred. It began when three of that pediatrician's patients reached out independently. They didn't know each other. They had no physical evidence. What they had was a shared experience and the same abuser.

By the time the investigation was complete, I had spoken to approximately 200 women and filed 105 cases. The only reason we didn't file all 200 is that some survivors chose not to pursue litigation. I never passed judgment on that decision.

My consistent message to anyone who believes their case is too old or lacks evidence: call an attorney before drawing that conclusion. Police reports you didn't know existed. Records accessible through freedom of information requests. Additional witnesses identified through legal channels. The legal system has tools most people are unaware of — and the right attorney knows how to find them.

Matt Dolman: Tell us about the Alexander brothers. These are cases you're actively working on.

Kristen Feden: The Alexander brothers are among the most resource-intensive cases I have encountered. Wealthy, well-connected, and represented by legal teams capable of filing motions at every stage of proceedings. More than forty women have come forward.

The pattern across cases has been consistent — drugging, sexual assault, and in most cases multiple perpetrators working in concert. Many survivors had no memory of how they got to where they were or what happened to them. Many blamed themselves — assuming they had simply consumed too much alcohol, not realizing that something had been placed in their drink without their knowledge.

A guilty verdict on all counts was recently returned in the criminal case. That changes the civil proceedings significantly. When an intentional tort has already been established in a criminal court, the civil case shifts from a full liability trial to largely an assessment of damages.

The challenges ahead involve determining where the brothers' assets actually live. There is a real estate agency and a separate security business — and figuring out how to attribute liability and reach assets across those structures is ongoing work. Statute of limitations issues also remain active, with appellate challenges pending for at least two of my clients. Whether those survivors will have their day in court is still an open question.

Matt Dolman: I want to touch on something you raised — the idea that survivors sometimes don't recognize what happened to them as sexual assault. Can you speak to that?

Kristen Feden: Yes. And it's something I speak about through nonprofit work as well. A lot of survivors — particularly in cases involving intoxicants — blame themselves. They think they drank too much. They think they put themselves in the wrong situation. What they don't realize is that someone put something in their drink without their knowledge or consent. And even if they did drink too much, even if they were in a situation they shouldn't have been in — none of that is an invitation to be sexually assaulted.

The question should never be: did she say no? The question should be: did she say yes? That shift in thinking — and getting that message to people early, before harm occurs — is part of why education around consent matters so much.

And for survivors who are hearing this: what happened to you was not your fault. Regardless of where you were. Regardless of what you drank. Regardless of what anyone told you afterward.

Matt Dolman: Let's close with Roblox. You handle sexual abuse cases. Is this different?

Kristen Feden: It's more similar than it appears. What we're talking about is a defect in design. The platform is defective. Age verification is absent. Known offenders — some with prior convictions — have been permitted to create multiple accounts on a platform marketed directly to children. Adults communicate freely with minors they have never met, with no meaningful oversight or intervention.

The argument is not about the content moderated on the platform, which implicates Section 230. It is about the construct of the platform itself. A design that makes it easy for adults to access children. A system that buries parental controls. A product that was never built with safety as a priority.

Roblox's CEO publicly described what was happening on his platform as a great opportunity. That is not a slip of the tongue. It reflects a corporate culture that prioritized growth and engagement over the safety of the children using it.

Stan Gipe: If every predator on the internet knows to go to Roblox, how does Roblox not know to stop them?

Kristen Feden: Exactly. And that question is at the heart of the litigation. How many children need to be harmed before a company acts? The platform knew. The question is what they chose to do with that knowledge — and what they chose not to do.

Matt Dolman: Kristen, I cannot tell you how much we appreciate this. This has been one of our best episodes. We would love to have you try a case with us someday.

Kristen Feden: I would absolutely love that. Thank you both — this has been a genuine pleasure.

Stan Gipe: This has been the David and Goliath podcast. I'm Stan Gipe, alongside my partner Matt Dolman, and our extraordinary guest Kristen Feden. Thank you for joining us. Have a blessed day.