DOJ-OGR-00004850.jpg
747 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing / legal brief (case law citation)
File Size:
747 KB
Summary
This document is page 38 of a legal filing from the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on July 2, 2021. It discusses legal arguments regarding the admissibility of 'prior bad acts' evidence and the 'doctrine of chances,' heavily citing Pennsylvania case law involving Bill Cosby (Commonwealth v. Cosby) and Andrea Constand. The text argues that the similarity of crimes can outweigh the remoteness in time between incidents.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Constand | Victim (in cited case law) |
Referencing Andrea Constand in the context of the Bill Cosby case, used here as legal precedent regarding prior bad a...
|
| Cosby | Defendant (in cited case law) |
Referencing Bill Cosby (implied by context and explicit mention of '[Cosby's]'), used as legal precedent.
|
| Tyson | Cited Legal Case Name |
Referenced in legal citation (Tyson, 119 A.3d at 359).
|
| Luktisch | Cited Legal Case Name |
Referenced in legal citation (Commonwealth v. Luktisch).
|
| Conte | Cited Legal Case Name |
Referenced in legal citation (Commonwealth v. Conte).
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Commonwealth |
Refers to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in the cited case law.
|
|
| Pa. Super. |
Pennsylvania Superior Court, referenced in case citations.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice, indicated by the Bates stamp 'DOJ-OGR'.
|
|
| United States District Court |
Implied by Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (SDNY).
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location of the legal precedents being cited (Pa. Super, Commonwealth).
|
Key Quotes (5)
"remoteness 'is but one factor that the court should consider.'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00004850.jpg
Quote #1
"the 'more similar the crimes, the less significant the length of time that has passed.'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00004850.jpg
Quote #2
"the sequential nature of the acts coupled with their nearly identical similarities renders the lapse of time unimportant."Source
DOJ-OGR-00004850.jpg
Quote #3
"Evidence 'will not be prohibited merely because it is harmful to the defendant,' and a court 'is not required to sanitize the trial to eliminate all unpleasant facts.'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00004850.jpg
Quote #4
"Where the parties agreed that the digital penetration occurred, the evidence of other acts was necessary to rebut [Cosby’s] characterization of"Source
DOJ-OGR-00004850.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,204 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 38 of 80
same or similar story, further supports the admissibility of this evidence under the doctrine
of chances.” Id.
of chances.” Id.
The trial court recognized that the alleged assaults upon the prior bad acts
witnesses were remote in time, but it explained that remoteness “is but one factor that the
court should consider.” Id. at 97. The court reasoned that the distance in time between
the prior acts and the incident involving Constand was “inversely proportional to the
similarity of the other crimes or acts.” Id. (citing Tyson, 119 A.3d at 359). Stated more
simply, the “more similar the crimes, the less significant the length of time that has
passed.” Id.at 98 (citing Commonwealth v. Luktisch, 680 A.2d 877 (Pa. Super. 1996)).
The court noted that, while there was a significant temporal gap between the prior
incidents and Constand’s case, the alleged assaults involving the prior bad acts witnesses
occurred relatively close in time to each other. Thus, “[w]hen taken together,” the court
explained, “the sequential nature of the acts coupled with their nearly identical similarities
renders the lapse of time unimportant.” Id. at 109.
witnesses were remote in time, but it explained that remoteness “is but one factor that the
court should consider.” Id. at 97. The court reasoned that the distance in time between
the prior acts and the incident involving Constand was “inversely proportional to the
similarity of the other crimes or acts.” Id. (citing Tyson, 119 A.3d at 359). Stated more
simply, the “more similar the crimes, the less significant the length of time that has
passed.” Id.at 98 (citing Commonwealth v. Luktisch, 680 A.2d 877 (Pa. Super. 1996)).
The court noted that, while there was a significant temporal gap between the prior
incidents and Constand’s case, the alleged assaults involving the prior bad acts witnesses
occurred relatively close in time to each other. Thus, “[w]hen taken together,” the court
explained, “the sequential nature of the acts coupled with their nearly identical similarities
renders the lapse of time unimportant.” Id. at 109.
To be unfairly prejudicial, the trial court emphasized, the proffered evidence must
be “unfair,” and must have a “tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis or to
divert the jury’s attention away from its duty of weighing the evidence impartially.” Id. at
100 (quoting Pa.R.E. 403 cmt). Evidence “will not be prohibited merely because it is
harmful to the defendant,” and a court “is not required to sanitize the trial to eliminate all
unpleasant facts.” Id. at 100-01 (quoting Commonwealth v. Conte, 198 A.3d 1169, 1180-
81 (Pa. Super. 2018)). For the trial court, the aforementioned similarities between
Constand’s claim and that of the other alleged victims weighed in favor of admissibility,
particularly because the court believed that the Commonwealth had a “substantial need”
for the evidence. Id. at 109. “Where the parties agreed that the digital penetration
occurred, the evidence of other acts was necessary to rebut [Cosby’s] characterization of
be “unfair,” and must have a “tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis or to
divert the jury’s attention away from its duty of weighing the evidence impartially.” Id. at
100 (quoting Pa.R.E. 403 cmt). Evidence “will not be prohibited merely because it is
harmful to the defendant,” and a court “is not required to sanitize the trial to eliminate all
unpleasant facts.” Id. at 100-01 (quoting Commonwealth v. Conte, 198 A.3d 1169, 1180-
81 (Pa. Super. 2018)). For the trial court, the aforementioned similarities between
Constand’s claim and that of the other alleged victims weighed in favor of admissibility,
particularly because the court believed that the Commonwealth had a “substantial need”
for the evidence. Id. at 109. “Where the parties agreed that the digital penetration
occurred, the evidence of other acts was necessary to rebut [Cosby’s] characterization of
[J-100-2020] - 37
DOJ-OGR-00004850
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document