{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "36",
    "document_number": "310-1",
    "date": "07/02/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 36 of 80\n\nknowledge, 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",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 36 of 80",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "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",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "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.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "(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).",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "17 Id. at 97 (quoting Commonwealth v. Tyson, 119 A.3d 353, 358–59 (Pa. Super. 2015) (en banc)).",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "[J-100-2020] - 35",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004848",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Cosby",
      "Constand",
      "Tyson"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "07/02/21",
      "2015"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "310-1",
      "J-100-2020",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004848"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case against Bill Cosby. The text discusses the admissibility of prior bad act evidence and references specific court rules and precedents."
}