DOJ-OGR-00004880.jpg
734 KB
Extraction Summary
7
People
1
Organizations
2
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
734 KB
Summary
This legal document argues that Bill Cosby did not invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination during civil depositions because he reasonably relied on District Attorney Castor's decision not to prosecute him. This reliance led Cosby to provide incriminating testimony about his past drug use, which hindered his defense in the civil action brought by Constand and resulted in a significant financial settlement. The central legal question raised is whether Cosby's reliance on the prosecutor's assurance was reasonable.
People (7)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Cosby | Defendant/Subject of legal analysis |
Mentioned throughout the document as the individual whose right against self-incrimination is being discussed. He rel...
|
| D.A. Castor | District Attorney |
The District Attorney whose decision not to prosecute Cosby is central to the legal argument. Cosby is said to have r...
|
| Constand | Plaintiff in a civil action |
Mentioned in the context of a civil action against Cosby, where her attorneys were provided with evidence from Cosby'...
|
| Miranda |
Mentioned in the case citation Miranda v. Arizona.
|
|
| Dulaney |
Mentioned in the case citation Commonwealth v. Dulaney.
|
|
| Taylor |
Mentioned in a case citation for the principle of construing constitutional rights broadly.
|
|
| Boyd |
Mentioned as the source of a quote in the Taylor case citation.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Commonwealth | government agency |
Mentioned in a case citation (Commonwealth v. Dulaney) and as the entity providing assurances of no prosecution.
|
Timeline (3 events)
Relationships (2)
D.A. Castor made a decision not to prosecute Cosby, which Cosby relied upon to his detriment.
Key Quotes (3)
"at any time."Source
— Miranda v. Arizona
(Describing when a person may invoke the right to refrain from giving evidence against himself.)
DOJ-OGR-00004880.jpg
Quote #1
"duty . . . to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen,"Source
— Taylor (quoting Boyd)
(Describing a court's duty, arguing against assuming an implicit waiver of rights.)
DOJ-OGR-00004880.jpg
Quote #2
"the potential exposure to criminal punishment no longer exist[ed]."Source
— Id. at 1065
(Describing the reasonable belief Cosby was operating under due to D.A. Castor's decision not to prosecute.)
DOJ-OGR-00004880.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,139 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 68 of 80
himself as well. Assuming that a person validly possesses the right to refrain from giving evidence against himself, he may invoke that right “at any time.” See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 473 (1966); Commonwealth v. Dulaney, 295 A.2d 328, 330 (Pa. 1972). The fact that Cosby did not assert any right to remain silent to the police or while sitting for the depositions is of no moment. Had his right to remain silent not been removed by D.A. Castor’s decision, Cosby would have been at liberty to invoke that right at will. That Cosby did not do so at other junctures is not proof that he held the right but elected not to invoke it, as the trial court evidently reasoned. To assume an implicit waiver of the right violates a court’s “duty . . . to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen,” and to construe the existence of such rights broadly. Taylor, 230 A.3d at 1064 (quoting Boyd, supra).
These legal commandments compel only one conclusion. Cosby did not invoke the Fifth Amendment before he incriminated himself because he was operating under the reasonable belief that D.A. Castor’s decision not to prosecute him meant that “the potential exposure to criminal punishment no longer exist[ed].” Id. at 1065. Cosby could not invoke that which he no longer possessed, given the Commonwealth’s assurances that he faced no risk of prosecution. Not only did D.A. Castor’s unconditional decision not to prosecute Cosby strip Cosby of a fundamental constitutional right, but, because he was forced to testify, Cosby provided Constand’s civil attorneys with evidence of Cosby’s past use of drugs to facilitate his sexual exploits. Undoubtedly, this information hindered Cosby’s ability to defend against the civil action, and led to a settlement for a significant amount of money. We are left with no doubt that Cosby relied to his detriment upon the district attorney’s decision not to prosecute him. The question then becomes whether that reliance was reasonable. Unreasonable reliance warrants no legal remedy.
[J-100-2020] - 67
DOJ-OGR-00004880
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document