The big question regarding Bill Cosby’s upcoming trial for aggravated indecent assault against Andrea Constand is whether or not “prior bad acts” evidence will be allowed. This is a legal term for general evidence showing that the defendant is a bad person. In this case, the prior bad acts consist of the claims of dozens of women who claim that they were sexually assaulted by Cosby.
The women claim that Cosby had sex with them against their will after lessening their defenses by giving them drugs such as Quaaludes. The legal question is whether or not the testimony of these women will be admissible in the criminal case in Pennsylvania.
Typically prosecutors are not allowed to introduce prior bad acts evidence. However, an exception to the general rule may allow the evidence if the prior bad acts show “motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.” For instance, in the case against a bank-robbery suspect who has previously been convicted of picking the lock of a safe in the same manner as in the current case, the prior acts evidence would certainly be allowed.
The question of whether this evidence will be allowed will most likely be determined by the attorneys and the judge in advance of the trial. Defense lawyers will claim the evidence is irrelevant: that proof of one bad act by the defendant does not mean that others were committed.
The prior bad acts question is critical, as the evidence in the current case has obvious weaknesses. The event took place 12 years ago, and Constand did not report the alleged crime for a year. And, although Constand had other unpleasant incidents with Cosby prior to the incident in question, she still continued seeing him, and she received a financial settlement from the entertainer years ago.
The whole tone of the case could change if the testimony of Cosby’s other accusers is allowed. Prior bad acts evidence is powerful, so defense attorneys will strongly protest its admission. Most likely the judge will examine all of the proposed prior bad acts evidence and determine which may have significant details in common with the current case. How the judge defines what “unfair prejudice,” and which evidence shows “intent, preparation, plan” will most likely be a critical factor in the outcome of the trial.