DOJ-OGR-00004854.jpg
766 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
2
Organizations
4
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
766 KB
Summary
This legal document, a court filing from 2021-07-02, discusses the admissibility of 'prior bad acts' evidence in a case involving Cosby and Constad. The Superior Court affirmed that evidence of Cosby's 'unique sexual assault playbook' was admissible to demonstrate a common plan, despite dissimilarities in the nature and location of the alleged assaults and the temporal gap between them. The court emphasized that the pattern of behavior, rather than absolute identicality of incidents, determines admissibility under Rule 404(b).
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Cosby |
Defendant in a case involving prior bad acts and sexual assault allegations; his 'unique sexual assault playbook' and...
|
|
| Constad |
Alleged victim in a sexual assault case; her allegations are compared to Cosby's prior bad acts.
|
|
| Tyson |
Associated with a 'rationale' that was concluded to be applicable to the instant case, likely a legal precedent.
|
|
| Shively |
Defendant in the case 'Commonwealth v. Shively', which is quoted regarding the admissibility of evidence.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Superior Court | government agency |
The court that agreed with the trial court's decision regarding the admissibility of prior bad acts evidence and dism...
|
| Commonwealth | government agency |
Party in the legal case 'Commonwealth v. Shively' that is quoted.
|
Timeline (2 events)
Locations (4)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location where Constad was a guest on multiple occasions and where the incident with Constad occurred.
|
|
|
Location where some alleged prior assaults by Cosby occurred.
|
|
|
Location where some alleged prior assaults by Cosby occurred.
|
|
|
Abbreviation for Pennsylvania, indicating the jurisdiction of the 'Commonwealth v. Shively' case.
|
Key Quotes (5)
"unique sexual assault playbook."Source
DOJ-OGR-00004854.jpg
Quote #1
"[i]t is impossible for two incidents of sexual assault involving different victims to be identical in all respects."Source
— Superior Court
(Opinion dismissing apparent dissimilarities between alleged sexual assaults as unimportant.)
DOJ-OGR-00004854.jpg
Quote #2
"simply unreasonable"Source
— Superior Court
(Describing the requirement for two incidents to be absolutely identical for admissibility under Rule 404(b).)
DOJ-OGR-00004854.jpg
Quote #3
"[i]t is the pattern itself, and not the mere presence of some inconsistencies between the various assaults, that determines admissibility under these exceptions."Source
— Superior Court
(Conclusion on what determines admissibility of prior bad acts evidence under Rule 404(b).)
DOJ-OGR-00004854.jpg
Quote #4
"will be rendered inadmissible if it is too remote."Source
— Commonwealth v. Shively
(Quoted by the Superior Court regarding the temporal gap between prior bad acts and the incident involving Constad.)
DOJ-OGR-00004854.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,194 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 42 of 80
five prior bad acts witnesses established a “predictable pattern” that reflected Cosby’s
“unique sexual assault playbook.” Cosby, 224 A.3d at 402. Accordingly, the panel
concluded that the witnesses’ testimony was admissible to show Cosby’s common plan,
scheme, or design.
“unique sexual assault playbook.” Cosby, 224 A.3d at 402. Accordingly, the panel
concluded that the witnesses’ testimony was admissible to show Cosby’s common plan,
scheme, or design.
The Superior Court further agreed with the trial court that the prior bad acts
evidence was admissible to demonstrate the absence of mistake on Cosby’s part as to
Constad’s consent. The court concluded that Tyson’s rationale was applicable to the
instant case. The court rejected Cosby’s efforts to distinguish Constad’s allegations
from those dating to the 1980s. Cosby emphasized the fact that the relationship between
Cosby and Constad lasted longer than his relationship with any of the prior bad acts
witnesses, that Constad was a guest at Cosby’s home on multiple occasions, that Cosby
and Constad had exchanged gifts, that Cosby had made prior sexual advances toward
Constad, that the nature of the sexual contact differed among the alleged victims, and
that the alleged prior assaults occurred in hotel rooms or at the home of a third party,
while the incident with Constad occurred in Cosby’s home. Id. at 401-02. The Superior
Court dismissed these apparent dissimilarities as unimportant, opining that “[i]t is
impossible for two incidents of sexual assault involving different victims to be identical in
all respects.” Id. at 402. The court added that it would be “simply unreasonable” to require
two incidents to be absolutely identical in order to be admissible under Rule 404(b), and
concluded that “[i]t is the pattern itself, and not the mere presence of some inconsistencies
between the various assaults, that determines admissibility under these exceptions.” Id.
evidence was admissible to demonstrate the absence of mistake on Cosby’s part as to
Constad’s consent. The court concluded that Tyson’s rationale was applicable to the
instant case. The court rejected Cosby’s efforts to distinguish Constad’s allegations
from those dating to the 1980s. Cosby emphasized the fact that the relationship between
Cosby and Constad lasted longer than his relationship with any of the prior bad acts
witnesses, that Constad was a guest at Cosby’s home on multiple occasions, that Cosby
and Constad had exchanged gifts, that Cosby had made prior sexual advances toward
Constad, that the nature of the sexual contact differed among the alleged victims, and
that the alleged prior assaults occurred in hotel rooms or at the home of a third party,
while the incident with Constad occurred in Cosby’s home. Id. at 401-02. The Superior
Court dismissed these apparent dissimilarities as unimportant, opining that “[i]t is
impossible for two incidents of sexual assault involving different victims to be identical in
all respects.” Id. at 402. The court added that it would be “simply unreasonable” to require
two incidents to be absolutely identical in order to be admissible under Rule 404(b), and
concluded that “[i]t is the pattern itself, and not the mere presence of some inconsistencies
between the various assaults, that determines admissibility under these exceptions.” Id.
As to the temporal gap between the prior bad acts and the incident involving
Constad, the Superior Court acknowledged that, even if the evidence were otherwise
admissible under Rule 404(b), it “will be rendered inadmissible if it is too remote.” Id. at
405 (quoting Commonwealth v. Shively, 424 A.2d 1257, 1259 (Pa. 1981)). The panel
Constad, the Superior Court acknowledged that, even if the evidence were otherwise
admissible under Rule 404(b), it “will be rendered inadmissible if it is too remote.” Id. at
405 (quoting Commonwealth v. Shively, 424 A.2d 1257, 1259 (Pa. 1981)). The panel
[J-100-2020] - 41
DOJ-OGR-00004854
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document