DOJ-OGR-00004853.jpg
845 KB
Extraction Summary
12
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / court opinion excerpt
File Size:
845 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a legal filing in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed July 2, 2021. It contains a legal argument citing *Commonwealth v. Tyson* and the Bill Cosby case to discuss the admissibility of Rule 404(b) evidence ('prior bad acts') to establish a common plan or scheme. The text details the legal reasoning for admitting evidence of a prior rape conviction in the *Tyson* case despite a twelve-year gap, using this as precedent to discuss Constand's allegations against Cosby.
People (12)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Tyson | Defendant in cited case (Commonwealth v. Tyson) |
Subject of a legal precedent regarding prior bad acts evidence.
|
| Cosby | Defendant in cited case |
Refers to Bill Cosby; the document discusses similarities between his accusers' allegations.
|
| Constand | Victim/Accuser |
Andrea Constand; her allegations against Cosby are compared to other accusers.
|
| Gantman | Judge (President Judge) |
Authored the majority opinion in the Tyson case.
|
| Mundy | Judge |
Joined the majority opinion in Tyson.
|
| Ford Elliott | Judge (President Judge Emeritus) |
Joined the majority opinion in Tyson.
|
| Panella | Judge |
Joined the majority opinion in Tyson.
|
| Shogan | Judge |
Joined the majority opinion in Tyson.
|
| Olson | Judge |
Joined the majority opinion in Tyson.
|
| Donohue | Judge |
Dissented in the Tyson case.
|
| Bender | Judge (President Judge Emeritus) |
Joined the dissent in Tyson.
|
| Ott | Judge |
Joined the dissent in Tyson.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Commonwealth |
Refers to the prosecution/state (Commonwealth of Pennsylvania).
|
|
| Superior Court |
Pennsylvania appellate court mentioned in the text.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice, referenced in the footer stamp (DOJ-OGR).
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location where Tyson had a prior rape conviction 12 years earlier.
|
Key Quotes (4)
"The court reasoned that the 'relevant details and surrounding circumstances of each incident further reveal criminal conduct that is sufficiently distinctive to establish [that Tyson] engaged in a common plan or scheme.'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00004853.jpg
Quote #1
"Notably, the Tyson Court found the twelve-year gap between Tyson’s Delaware conviction and the offense at issue to be 'less important' when compared to the strength of the similarities between the crimes."Source
DOJ-OGR-00004853.jpg
Quote #2
"Based upon the similarities between Constand’s allegations and those of Cosby’s other accusers identified by the trial court, the Superior Court agreed that the accounts of the"Source
DOJ-OGR-00004853.jpg
Quote #3
"The dissent further disputed the en banc majority’s reliance upon the need for the prior bad acts evidence 'to bolster the credibility of the Commonwealth’s only witness where there is no indication that the witness is otherwise impeachable.'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00004853.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,493 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 41 of 80
told Tyson to stop, and he complied. But, when she fell asleep a second time, he resumed
the uninvited sexual contact. Tyson was arrested and charged with sex-related offenses.
Id.
Before trial, the Commonwealth sought to introduce evidence of a rape for which
Tyson had been convicted in Delaware twelve years earlier. Id. The Delaware offense
involved a victim of the same race and of a similar age as the victim in Tyson. Id. The
Delaware victim similarly was casually acquainted with Tyson, invited Tyson into her
home, was in a compromised state, and awoke to find Tyson engaged in vaginal
intercourse with her. Id. at 357. The trial court declined to admit the Rule 404(b) evidence
against Tyson. Id. at 356. On interlocutory appeal, the Superior Court reversed the trial
court’s decision, finding that the proffered evidence was admissible. Id. at 363. The court
reasoned that the “relevant details and surrounding circumstances of each incident further
reveal criminal conduct that is sufficiently distinctive to establish [that Tyson] engaged in
a common plan or scheme.” Id. at 360.18 Notably, the Tyson Court found the twelve-year
gap between Tyson’s Delaware conviction and the offense at issue to be “less important”
when compared to the strength of the similarities between the crimes. Id. at 361.
With Tyson in mind, the Superior Court turned its attention to the case sub judice.
Based upon the similarities between Constand’s allegations and those of Cosby’s other
accusers identified by the trial court, the Superior Court agreed that the accounts of the
the uninvited sexual contact. Tyson was arrested and charged with sex-related offenses.
Id.
Before trial, the Commonwealth sought to introduce evidence of a rape for which
Tyson had been convicted in Delaware twelve years earlier. Id. The Delaware offense
involved a victim of the same race and of a similar age as the victim in Tyson. Id. The
Delaware victim similarly was casually acquainted with Tyson, invited Tyson into her
home, was in a compromised state, and awoke to find Tyson engaged in vaginal
intercourse with her. Id. at 357. The trial court declined to admit the Rule 404(b) evidence
against Tyson. Id. at 356. On interlocutory appeal, the Superior Court reversed the trial
court’s decision, finding that the proffered evidence was admissible. Id. at 363. The court
reasoned that the “relevant details and surrounding circumstances of each incident further
reveal criminal conduct that is sufficiently distinctive to establish [that Tyson] engaged in
a common plan or scheme.” Id. at 360.18 Notably, the Tyson Court found the twelve-year
gap between Tyson’s Delaware conviction and the offense at issue to be “less important”
when compared to the strength of the similarities between the crimes. Id. at 361.
With Tyson in mind, the Superior Court turned its attention to the case sub judice.
Based upon the similarities between Constand’s allegations and those of Cosby’s other
accusers identified by the trial court, the Superior Court agreed that the accounts of the
18 The en banc majority opinion in Tyson was authored by then-President Judge
Gantman and joined by then-Judge Mundy, President Judge Emeritus Ford Elliott, and
Judges Panella, Shogan, and Olson. Then-Judge Donohue dissented, joined by
President Judge Emeritus Bender and Judge Ott, opining that the majority
“overemphasize[d] the few similarities that exist between Tyson’s prior rape conviction
and the present matter while completely dismissing the several important differences
between the two incidents.” Tyson, 119 A.3d at 363 (Donohue, J., dissenting). The
dissent further disputed the en banc majority’s reliance upon the need for the prior bad
acts evidence “to bolster the credibility of the Commonwealth’s only witness where there
is no indication that the witness is otherwise impeachable.” Id. at 364.
Gantman and joined by then-Judge Mundy, President Judge Emeritus Ford Elliott, and
Judges Panella, Shogan, and Olson. Then-Judge Donohue dissented, joined by
President Judge Emeritus Bender and Judge Ott, opining that the majority
“overemphasize[d] the few similarities that exist between Tyson’s prior rape conviction
and the present matter while completely dismissing the several important differences
between the two incidents.” Tyson, 119 A.3d at 363 (Donohue, J., dissenting). The
dissent further disputed the en banc majority’s reliance upon the need for the prior bad
acts evidence “to bolster the credibility of the Commonwealth’s only witness where there
is no indication that the witness is otherwise impeachable.” Id. at 364.
[J-100-2020] - 40
DOJ-OGR-00004853
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document