DOJ-OGR-00004848.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 36 of 80

knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident, so long as the probative value of
the evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect.16 The court then determined that the
testimony of the five prior bad act witnesses—and the deposition testimony pertaining to
the prior use of Quaaludes—was admissible to demonstrate Cosby’s common plan,
scheme, or design. The trial court reasoned that the similarity and distinctiveness of the
crimes bore a logical connection to Constand’s allegations, and amounted to a “signature
of the same perpetrator.”17 Comparing the past and present allegations, the court noted
that each woman was substantially younger than Cosby and physically fit; that Cosby
initiated the contact with each woman, primarily though her employment; that each
woman came to trust Cosby and view him as a friend or mentor; that each woman
accepted an invitation to a place that Cosby controlled; that each woman consumed a

__________________________________________________________________
16 T.C.O. 96-97 (citing Pa.R.E. 404(b)). Rule 404 provides, in relevant part:
(a) Character Evidence.
(1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of a person’s character or character
trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the
person acted in accordance with the character or trait.
* * *
(b) Crimes, Wrongs or Other Acts.
(1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not
admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a
particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the
character.
(2) Permitted Uses. This evidence may be admissible for another
purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation,
plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident. In
a criminal case this evidence is admissible only if the probative value
of the evidence outweighs its potential for unfair prejudice.
Pa.R.E. 404(b)(1)-(2).
17 Id. at 97 (quoting Commonwealth v. Tyson, 119 A.3d 353, 358-59 (Pa. Super.
2015) (en banc)).

[J-100-2020] - 35

DOJ-OGR-00004848