We’ve blogged about the ever-mounting allegations of rape that have been emerging against Bill Cosby several times in the past. My own proposal about what he ought to do, it seems safe to say, is no longer an option. As readers are doubtlessly aware, Cosby is finally facing charges in court from one of the by-the-time-you-can-no-longer-even-keep-track–that-probably-speaks-greater-volumes-than-the-actual-number (not to elide the irreducibly unique subjectivity of each person affected, directly and indirectly) of alleged victims.

I will spare you further expressions of my own moral outrage to instead share this legal analysis of the case by Jeffrey Toobin of The New Yorker. An excerpt:

The legal issue involves the dozens of other women who have also come forward, in recent months, to claim that Cosby sexually assaulted them. In a general way, the claims of the women are broadly consistent. They say that Cosby gave them drugs like Quaaludes to lessen their defenses, and then had sex with them against their will. The legal question is whether the testimony of any or all of these women will be admissible against Cosby in the criminal case in Pennsylvania.

If a person is liable that is going through this particular issue he tends to face a very lesser supply of blood towards the penile organ which is the sole reason why opioids are always given in small doses. viagra buy in usa Source Today, the Saw Palmetto comes in at number five. cialis viagra levitra This problem can also be sample cialis addressed with Kamagra UK. It is used for massaging patients who cialis shipping http://frankkrauseautomotive.com/cars-for-sale/2006-toyota-rav-4-limited/ suffer from paralysis, body pain and pain in joints. 3.

This sort of testimony [upon which the case likely hinges] is known in the courts as “prior bad acts” evidence. Its use in Pennsylvania is governed by Rule 404, which is roughly consistent with a federal rule known by the same number. In general, prosecutors are not allowed to introduce general evidence that a defendant is a bad person. [….]

Importantly, though, there is an exception to the general rule barring prior bad-acts evidence. Prosecutors may introduce evidence of other bad acts by a defendant if they serve to show “motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.”

So the outcome, it seems, may hinge upon whether the appointed judge deems Cosby’s apparent M.O. of knocking women out with Quaaludes in order to rape them demonstrates “motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.”

The answer seems clear to me, but I know better than to make any assumptions about the outcome based on that…