DOJ-OGR-00004842.jpg
733 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / court opinion excerpt
File Size:
733 KB
Summary
This page is an excerpt from a legal opinion (likely Commonwealth v. Cosby) filed as an exhibit in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330). It discusses the court's rejection of Bill Cosby's claim that he had a non-prosecution agreement with former D.A. Castor. The court found that Cosby voluntarily spoke to police without invoking the Fifth Amendment and that reliance on a press release as a grant of immunity was unreasonable, especially since his attorneys failed to obtain the promise in writing. This legal precedent is likely being cited in the Maxwell case to argue about the validity or scope of non-prosecution agreements.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Bill Cosby | Defendant/Appellant |
Subject of the legal opinion regarding immunity and prosecution.
|
| Constand | Victim/Complainant |
Individual involved in the sexual encounter with Cosby.
|
| Bruce Castor | Former District Attorney |
Referred to as [D.A.] Castor; allegedly made a promise of immunity.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Commonwealth |
Prosecution authority (Pennsylvania).
|
|
| Superior Court |
Appellate court that quashed Cosby's appeal.
|
|
| Trial Court |
Lower court whose rulings are being discussed.
|
Timeline (2 events)
Unspecified past
Relationships (2)
Text refers to 'narrative of a consensual sexual encounter with Constand'
Discussion of whether Castor extended a promise of immunity to Cosby.
Key Quotes (4)
"Cosby presented a narrative of a consensual sexual encounter with Constand"Source
DOJ-OGR-00004842.jpg
Quote #1
"“there was nothing to indicate that [Cosby’s] cooperation would cease if a civil case were filed.”"Source
DOJ-OGR-00004842.jpg
Quote #2
"“any reliance on a press release as a grant of immunity was unreasonable.”"Source
DOJ-OGR-00004842.jpg
Quote #3
"none of them “obtained [D.A.] Castor’s promise in writing or memorialized it in any way.”"Source
DOJ-OGR-00004842.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,141 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 30 of 80
As further support for the view that no agreement was reached, nor any promise
extended, the trial court noted that, in his initial statement to police, which was voluntarily
provided and not under oath, Cosby did not invoke his Fifth Amendment rights. Instead,
Cosby presented a narrative of a consensual sexual encounter with Constand, which he
asserted again later in his depositions. “Thus,” the trial court explained, “there was
nothing to indicate that [Cosby’s] cooperation would cease if a civil case were filed.” Id.
at 65. Since Cosby previously had discussed the incident without invoking his right to
remain silent, the court found no reason to believe that Cosby subsequently would do so
in a civil case so as to necessitate the remedy that the former district attorney purported
to provide in anticipation of that litigation.
extended, the trial court noted that, in his initial statement to police, which was voluntarily
provided and not under oath, Cosby did not invoke his Fifth Amendment rights. Instead,
Cosby presented a narrative of a consensual sexual encounter with Constand, which he
asserted again later in his depositions. “Thus,” the trial court explained, “there was
nothing to indicate that [Cosby’s] cooperation would cease if a civil case were filed.” Id.
at 65. Since Cosby previously had discussed the incident without invoking his right to
remain silent, the court found no reason to believe that Cosby subsequently would do so
in a civil case so as to necessitate the remedy that the former district attorney purported
to provide in anticipation of that litigation.
The trial court further held that, even if there was a purported grant of immunity,
Cosby could not insist upon its enforcement based upon the contractual theory of
promissory estoppel, because “any reliance on a press release as a grant of immunity
was unreasonable.” Id. Specifically, the court noted that Cosby was represented at all
times by a competent team of attorneys, but none of them “obtained [D.A.] Castor’s
promise in writing or memorialized it in any way.” Id. at 65-66. The failure to demand
written documentation was evidence that no promise not to prosecute was ever extended.
For these reasons, the trial court found no legal basis to estop the Commonwealth from
prosecuting Cosby.
Cosby could not insist upon its enforcement based upon the contractual theory of
promissory estoppel, because “any reliance on a press release as a grant of immunity
was unreasonable.” Id. Specifically, the court noted that Cosby was represented at all
times by a competent team of attorneys, but none of them “obtained [D.A.] Castor’s
promise in writing or memorialized it in any way.” Id. at 65-66. The failure to demand
written documentation was evidence that no promise not to prosecute was ever extended.
For these reasons, the trial court found no legal basis to estop the Commonwealth from
prosecuting Cosby.
Cosby filed a notice of appeal and a petition for review with the Superior Court. In
response to the filings, the Superior Court temporarily stayed the proceedings below.
However, upon a motion by the Commonwealth, the Superior Court quashed the appeal
and lifted the stay. This Court likewise rejected Cosby’s pre-trial efforts to appeal the
adverse rulings, denying his petition for allowance of appeal, his petition for review, and
his emergency petition for a stay of the proceedings.
response to the filings, the Superior Court temporarily stayed the proceedings below.
However, upon a motion by the Commonwealth, the Superior Court quashed the appeal
and lifted the stay. This Court likewise rejected Cosby’s pre-trial efforts to appeal the
adverse rulings, denying his petition for allowance of appeal, his petition for review, and
his emergency petition for a stay of the proceedings.
[J-100-2020] - 29
DOJ-OGR-00004842
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document