DOJ-OGR-00004855.jpg
777 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
6
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / court opinion excerpt
File Size:
777 KB
Summary
This document is page 43 of 80 from a legal filing in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on July 2, 2021. The text analyzes legal precedents from the Bill Cosby case (Commonwealth v. Cosby), focusing on the admissibility of 'prior bad acts' evidence, Rule 404(b), and the use of drugs (Quaaludes vs. Benadryl) to establish mens rea. It appears this case law is being cited to support arguments regarding evidence admissibility in the Maxwell trial.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Cosby | Defendant (in referenced case) |
Subject of the legal analysis regarding prior bad acts and drug use.
|
| Constand | Victim/Accuser (in referenced case) |
The individual Cosby claimed to have consensual contact with; allegedly provided Benadryl.
|
| Commonwealth | Prosecution |
Refers to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania prosecution team arguing against Cosby.
|
| Aikens | Defendant (in cited case) |
Referenced in case citation Commonwealth v. Aikens regarding prior bad acts.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Superior Court |
The court reviewing the trial court's decisions regarding Cosby.
|
|
| Trial Court |
The original court that made rulings on evidence admissibility.
|
|
| Commonwealth |
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Implied by case citations (Pa. Super, Pa.R.E.).
|
Key Quotes (6)
"significance of the age of a prior bad act is 'inversely proportional' to the similarity between the prior bad act and the facts underlying the charged offense."Source
DOJ-OGR-00004855.jpg
Quote #1
"the at-issue time gap is relatively inconsequential"Source
DOJ-OGR-00004855.jpg
Quote #2
"Cosby’s identity in this case was not in dispute"Source
DOJ-OGR-00004855.jpg
Quote #3
"limit the number of prior bad acts witnesses to five"Source
DOJ-OGR-00004855.jpg
Quote #4
"attempts to draw a hard distinction between Quaaludes and Benadryl"Source
DOJ-OGR-00004855.jpg
Quote #5
"knowledge of the use of central nervous system depressants"Source
DOJ-OGR-00004855.jpg
Quote #6
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,280 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 43 of 80
agreed with the trial court’s statement that the significance of the age of a prior bad act is
“inversely proportional” to the similarity between the prior bad act and the facts underlying
the charged offense. Id. (quoting Commonwealth v. Aikens, 990 A.2d 1181, 1185 (Pa.
Super. 2010)). Although the panel recognized the significant lag in time between the
events in question, it relied upon the similarities as found by the trial court to conclude
that “the at-issue time gap is relatively inconsequential.” Id. “Moreover,” the panel opined,
“because [Cosby’s] identity in this case was not in dispute (as he claimed he only engaged
in consensual sexual contact with [Constand]), there was no risk of misidentification”
through the admission of the prior bad acts evidence, “despite the gap in time.” Id.
“inversely proportional” to the similarity between the prior bad act and the facts underlying
the charged offense. Id. (quoting Commonwealth v. Aikens, 990 A.2d 1181, 1185 (Pa.
Super. 2010)). Although the panel recognized the significant lag in time between the
events in question, it relied upon the similarities as found by the trial court to conclude
that “the at-issue time gap is relatively inconsequential.” Id. “Moreover,” the panel opined,
“because [Cosby’s] identity in this case was not in dispute (as he claimed he only engaged
in consensual sexual contact with [Constand]), there was no risk of misidentification”
through the admission of the prior bad acts evidence, “despite the gap in time.” Id.
Additionally, the Superior Court rejected Cosby’s contention that the trial court had
failed to weigh adequately the prejudicial impact of the prior bad acts evidence. The panel
highlighted the fact that the trial court provided the jury with cautionary instructions on the
use of the evidence, as well as that court’s decision to limit the number of prior bad acts
witnesses to five. These steps, in the Superior Court’s view, were sufficient to mitigate
the prejudicial impact of the evidence. Id.
failed to weigh adequately the prejudicial impact of the prior bad acts evidence. The panel
highlighted the fact that the trial court provided the jury with cautionary instructions on the
use of the evidence, as well as that court’s decision to limit the number of prior bad acts
witnesses to five. These steps, in the Superior Court’s view, were sufficient to mitigate
the prejudicial impact of the evidence. Id.
The Superior Court dealt separately with Cosby’s Rule 404(b) challenge to the use
of his deposition testimony regarding his provision of Quaaludes to women in the past.
The court rejected Cosby’s “attempts to draw a hard distinction between Quaaludes and
Benadryl,” and noted that “the jury was free to disbelieve [Cosby’s] assertion that he only
provided [Constand] with Benadryl.” Id. at 420. The court credited the Commonwealth’s
argument that Cosby’s familiarity with Quaaludes was suggestive of his mens rea,
inasmuch as it was “highly probative of ‘the circumstances known to him for purposes of
determining whether he acted with the requisite mens rea for the offense of aggravated
indecent assault—recklessness.” Id. (quoting Pa.R.E. 404(b)(2)). Moreover, Cosby’s
“knowledge of the use of central nervous system depressants, coupled with his likely past
of his deposition testimony regarding his provision of Quaaludes to women in the past.
The court rejected Cosby’s “attempts to draw a hard distinction between Quaaludes and
Benadryl,” and noted that “the jury was free to disbelieve [Cosby’s] assertion that he only
provided [Constand] with Benadryl.” Id. at 420. The court credited the Commonwealth’s
argument that Cosby’s familiarity with Quaaludes was suggestive of his mens rea,
inasmuch as it was “highly probative of ‘the circumstances known to him for purposes of
determining whether he acted with the requisite mens rea for the offense of aggravated
indecent assault—recklessness.” Id. (quoting Pa.R.E. 404(b)(2)). Moreover, Cosby’s
“knowledge of the use of central nervous system depressants, coupled with his likely past
[J-100-2020] - 42
DOJ-OGR-00004855
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document