DOJ-OGR-00004884.jpg
760 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
0
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
760 KB
Summary
This legal document argues that a defendant's level of sophistication is an irrelevant and unfair metric for determining the reasonableness of their reliance on legal advice or prosecutorial decisions. It uses the case of Cosby, who, despite his wealth and media savvy, reasonably relied on District Attorney Castor's public promise not to prosecute, which resulted in Cosby providing self-incriminating testimony. The document asserts that Castor made this decision knowing it would induce Cosby's reliance.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Cosby | Defendant |
Mentioned as the defendant who relied on a prosecutor's public announcement not to prosecute, leading him to provide ...
|
| D.A. Castor | District Attorney |
The District Attorney who made a public announcement that Cosby would not be prosecuted, knowing this would induce Co...
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Commonwealth | Government entity |
The governmental body on whose behalf District Attorney Castor made the decision not to prosecute Cosby.
|
Timeline (2 events)
D.A. Castor announced his declination decision not to prosecute Cosby on behalf of the Commonwealth.
Relationships (1)
The document details Cosby's reliance on D.A. Castor's public announcement not to prosecute. It states Castor knew his decision would induce Cosby's reliance and lead to his testimony.
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,180 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 72 of 80
reasonable. Such a consideration is both impractical and unfair. There is no equitable method of assessing a particular defendant's degree of sophistication. Any attempt would be an arbitrary line-drawing exercise that unjustifiably would deem some sophisticated and some not. Nor are there any objective criteria that could be used to make that assessment accurately. Would sophistication for such purposes be established based upon one's ability to hire one or more attorneys? By the level of education attained by the defendant? Or perhaps by the number of times the defendant has participated in the criminal justice system? There is no measure that could justify assessing reasonableness based upon the so-called sophistication of the defendant.
The contours of the right to counsel do not vary based upon the characteristics of the individual seeking to invoke it. Our Constitutions safeguard fundamental rights equally for all. The right to counsel applies with equal force to the sophisticated and the unsophisticated alike. The most experienced defendant, the wealthiest suspect, and even the most-seasoned defense attorney are each entitled to rely upon the advice of their counsel. Notwithstanding Cosby's wealth, age, number of attorneys, and media savvy, he, too, was entitled to rely upon the advice of his counsel. No level of sophistication can alter that fundamental constitutional guarantee.
In accordance with the advice his attorneys, Cosby relied upon D.A. Castor's public announcement that he would not be prosecuted. His reliance was reasonable, and it resulted in the deprivation of a fundamental constitutional right when he was compelled to furnished self-incriminating testimony. Cosby reasonably relied upon the Commonwealth's decision for approximately ten years. When he announced his declination decision on behalf of the Commonwealth, District Attorney Castor knew that Cosby would be forced to testify based upon the Commonwealth's assurances. Knowing that he induced Cosby's reliance, and that his decision not to prosecute was designed to
[J-100-2020] - 71
DOJ-OGR-00004884
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document