DOJ-OGR-00004852.jpg
755 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / court opinion exhibit
File Size:
755 KB
Summary
This document is Page 40 of 80 from a legal filing (Exhibit) in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330), filed on July 2, 2021. The text is an excerpt from a legal opinion regarding *Commonwealth v. Cosby*, discussing the procedural history of Bill Cosby's appeal and the legal standards for admitting 'prior bad acts' evidence under Rule 404(b) and the 'common plan, scheme, or design' exception. It cites precedents *Commonwealth v. Miller* and *Commonwealth v. Tyson* to analyze how such evidence is used to establish identity or counter defenses of consent.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Cosby | Defendant/Appellant |
Subject of the legal opinion regarding admissibility of prior bad acts evidence and appeal process.
|
| Jermeel Omar Tyson | Defendant in cited case |
Cited as legal precedent (Commonwealth v. Tyson) regarding assault of a sleeping victim.
|
| Miller | Defendant in cited case |
Cited as legal precedent (Commonwealth v. Miller) regarding common plan/scheme evidence.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Superior Court |
Pennsylvania appellate court that affirmed Cosby's sentence.
|
|
| Department of Justice |
Implied by 'DOJ-OGR' Bates stamp.
|
|
| Trial Court |
Lower court that issued the original opinion and sentence.
|
Timeline (3 events)
2019
May 14, 2019
Unspecified (Tyson case)
Jermeel Omar Tyson brought food to a victim, waited for her to fall asleep, and assaulted her.
Victim's residence
Jermeel Omar Tyson
Unnamed Victim
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Jurisdiction of the cited laws and cases (Pa.R.A.P., Pa. Super.).
|
Relationships (2)
Superior Court affirmed the judgment of sentence against Cosby.
Tyson brought food to his victim... Tyson was having vaginal intercourse with her.
Key Quotes (3)
"The exception is demanding in it[s] constraints, requiring nearly unique factual circumstances in the commission of a crime, so as to effectively eliminate the possibility that it could have been committed by anyone other than the accused."Source
DOJ-OGR-00004852.jpg
Quote #1
"Although the common plan, scheme, or design rationale typically is used to establish the identity of a perpetrator of a particular crime, the Superior Court pointed out that courts previously have also used the exception 'to counter [an] anticipated defense of consent.'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00004852.jpg
Quote #2
"He filed post-sentence motions seeking a new trial and a modification of his sentence, which were denied."Source
DOJ-OGR-00004852.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,182 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 40 of 80
in prison. Cosby was denied bail pending an appeal. He filed post-sentence motions
seeking a new trial and a modification of his sentence, which were denied.
seeking a new trial and a modification of his sentence, which were denied.
Cosby timely filed a notice of appeal, prompting the trial court to order him to file a
concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).
Cosby complied. On May 14, 2019, the trial court responded to Cosby’s concise
statement with its opinion, issued pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a).
concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).
Cosby complied. On May 14, 2019, the trial court responded to Cosby’s concise
statement with its opinion, issued pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a).
A unanimous panel of the Superior Court affirmed the judgment of sentence in all
respects. Commonwealth v. Cosby, 224 A.3d 372 (Pa. Super. 2019). The Superior Court
began by assessing Cosby’s challenge to the admissibility of the prior bad acts evidence
under Rule 404(b). The panel observed that a reviewing court must evaluate the
admission of evidence pursuant to the abuse-of-discretion standard. Id. at 397.
Addressing the trial court’s rationale regarding the admissibility of prior bad acts evidence
demonstrating a common plan, scheme, or design, the panel noted that the exception
aims to establish a perpetrator’s identity based upon “his or her commission of
extraordinarily similar criminal acts on other occasions. The exception is demanding in
it[s] constraints, requiring nearly unique factual circumstances in the commission of a
crime, so as to effectively eliminate the possibility that it could have been committed by
anyone other than the accused.” Id. at 398 (citing Commonwealth v. Miller, 664 A.2d
1310, 1318 (Pa. 1995)). Although the common plan, scheme, or design rationale typically
is used to establish the identity of a perpetrator of a particular crime, the Superior Court
pointed out that courts previously have also used the exception “to counter [an]
anticipated defense of consent.” Id. (quoting Tyson, 119 A.3d at 361).
respects. Commonwealth v. Cosby, 224 A.3d 372 (Pa. Super. 2019). The Superior Court
began by assessing Cosby’s challenge to the admissibility of the prior bad acts evidence
under Rule 404(b). The panel observed that a reviewing court must evaluate the
admission of evidence pursuant to the abuse-of-discretion standard. Id. at 397.
Addressing the trial court’s rationale regarding the admissibility of prior bad acts evidence
demonstrating a common plan, scheme, or design, the panel noted that the exception
aims to establish a perpetrator’s identity based upon “his or her commission of
extraordinarily similar criminal acts on other occasions. The exception is demanding in
it[s] constraints, requiring nearly unique factual circumstances in the commission of a
crime, so as to effectively eliminate the possibility that it could have been committed by
anyone other than the accused.” Id. at 398 (citing Commonwealth v. Miller, 664 A.2d
1310, 1318 (Pa. 1995)). Although the common plan, scheme, or design rationale typically
is used to establish the identity of a perpetrator of a particular crime, the Superior Court
pointed out that courts previously have also used the exception “to counter [an]
anticipated defense of consent.” Id. (quoting Tyson, 119 A.3d at 361).
In Tyson, Jermeel Omar Tyson brought food to his victim, who was feeling ill.
Tyson, 119 A.3d at 356. While Tyson remained in the residence, the victim fell asleep.
When she awoke some time later, Tyson was having vaginal intercourse with her. She
Tyson, 119 A.3d at 356. While Tyson remained in the residence, the victim fell asleep.
When she awoke some time later, Tyson was having vaginal intercourse with her. She
[J-100-2020] - 39
DOJ-OGR-00004852
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document