DOJ-OGR-00004877.jpg
753 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
753 KB
Summary
This legal document analyzes D.A. Castor's decision and press release concerning Cosby, asserting that Castor's intent was to induce Cosby's reliance, which led Cosby to testify in Constand's civil case without invoking his Fifth Amendment rights. The text further discusses the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, highlighting the right against self-incrimination as an "essential mainstay" of criminal justice, citing the Supreme Court case *Malloy v. Hogan*.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| D.A. Castor | District Attorney |
Announced a decision, issued a press release, intended to induce Cosby's reliance, made a decision not to prosecute C...
|
| Cosby |
Subject of a prosecution decision, detrimentally relied upon the Commonwealth’s decision, testified in four depositio...
|
|
| Constand |
Party in a civil case where Cosby testified.
|
|
| Malloy |
Party in the Supreme Court case Malloy v. Hogan.
|
|
| Hogan |
Party in the Supreme Court case Malloy v. Hogan.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Commonwealth | Government agency |
Its decision was relied upon by Cosby.
|
| United States Constitution | Legal framework/document |
The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments are discussed as applicable to the States.
|
| U.S. CONST. | Legal framework/document |
Abbreviation for United States Constitution, specifically referencing the Fifth Amendment.
|
| government | Government |
The Fifth Amendment privilege constitutes an essential restraint upon its power.
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
The Fifth Amendment is applicable to the States via incorporation though the Fourteenth Amendment.
|
Relationships (2)
D.A. Castor made a decision regarding Cosby's prosecution and issued a press release with the ultimate intent to induce Cosby's reliance.
Key Quotes (4)
"will reconsider this decision should the need arise"Source
— D.A. Castor
(D.A. Castor's announcement regarding his decision not to comment publicly.)
DOJ-OGR-00004877.jpg
Quote #1
"on the details of his [charging] decision for fear that his opinions and analysis might be given undue weight by jurors in any contemplated civil action."Source
— D.A. Castor (implied)
(D.A. Castor's reason for not commenting publicly on his charging decision.)
DOJ-OGR-00004877.jpg
Quote #2
"[n]o person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."Source
— United States Constitution (Fifth Amendment)
(Quoting the Fifth Amendment regarding the right against self-incrimination.)
DOJ-OGR-00004877.jpg
Quote #3
"essential mainstay"Source
— Supreme Court (from Malloy v. Hogan)
(Describing the right to refuse to incriminate oneself as part of the constitutional system of criminal justice.)
DOJ-OGR-00004877.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,207 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 65 of 80
When we review the statement in its full context, it is clear that, when D.A. Castor
announced that he “will reconsider this decision should the need arise,” the decision to
which he was referring was his decision not to comment publicly “on the details of his
[charging] decision for fear that his opinions and analysis might be given undue weight
by jurors in any contemplated civil action.” The entire paragraph addresses the district
attorney’s concern that he might inadvertently taint a potential civil jury pool by making
public remarks about the credibility of the likely parties in that highly anticipated case.
Then-D.A. Castor expressly stated that he could change his mind on that decision only.
Nothing in this paragraph pertains to his decision not to prosecute Cosby. The trial court’s
conclusion is belied by a plain reading of the entire passage.
announced that he “will reconsider this decision should the need arise,” the decision to
which he was referring was his decision not to comment publicly “on the details of his
[charging] decision for fear that his opinions and analysis might be given undue weight
by jurors in any contemplated civil action.” The entire paragraph addresses the district
attorney’s concern that he might inadvertently taint a potential civil jury pool by making
public remarks about the credibility of the likely parties in that highly anticipated case.
Then-D.A. Castor expressly stated that he could change his mind on that decision only.
Nothing in this paragraph pertains to his decision not to prosecute Cosby. The trial court’s
conclusion is belied by a plain reading of the entire passage.
Our inquiry does not end there. D.A. Castor’s press release, without more, does
not necessarily create a due process entitlement. Rather, the due process implications
arise because Cosby detrimentally relied upon the Commonwealth’s decision, which was
the district attorney’s ultimate intent in issuing the press release. There was no evidence
of record indicating that D.A. Castor intended anything other than to induce Cosby’s
reliance. Indeed, the most patent and obvious evidence of Cosby’s reliance was his
counseled decision to testify in four depositions in Constand’s civil case without ever
invoking his Fifth Amendment rights.
not necessarily create a due process entitlement. Rather, the due process implications
arise because Cosby detrimentally relied upon the Commonwealth’s decision, which was
the district attorney’s ultimate intent in issuing the press release. There was no evidence
of record indicating that D.A. Castor intended anything other than to induce Cosby’s
reliance. Indeed, the most patent and obvious evidence of Cosby’s reliance was his
counseled decision to testify in four depositions in Constand’s civil case without ever
invoking his Fifth Amendment rights.
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is applicable to the
States via incorporation though the Fourteenth Amendment, commands that “[n]o person
... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” U.S. CONST.
amend. V. The right to refuse to incriminate oneself is an “essential mainstay” of our
constitutional system of criminal justice. Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, 7 (1964). The
privilege constitutes an essential restraint upon the power of the government, and stands
as an indispensable rampart between that government and the governed. The Fifth
States via incorporation though the Fourteenth Amendment, commands that “[n]o person
... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” U.S. CONST.
amend. V. The right to refuse to incriminate oneself is an “essential mainstay” of our
constitutional system of criminal justice. Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, 7 (1964). The
privilege constitutes an essential restraint upon the power of the government, and stands
as an indispensable rampart between that government and the governed. The Fifth
[J-100-2020] - 64
DOJ-OGR-00004877
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document