DOJ-OGR-00004857.jpg
747 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
3
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
747 KB
Summary
This legal document details the Superior Court's decision to reject Cosby's appeal for immunity from prosecution. The court ruled that any promise made by D.A. Castor was not legally binding without a formal court order, and it was unreasonable for Cosby, being represented by counsel, to rely on such an informal assurance. The court also found insufficient evidence that Cosby waived his Fifth Amendment rights in a civil deposition specifically because of Castor's promise.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Cosby | Defendant/Appellant |
The central figure in the legal proceedings, whose appeal regarding immunity from prosecution is being discussed.
|
| Mr. Castor | District Attorney (D.A.) |
A District Attorney who allegedly gave assurances or a promise not to prosecute Cosby.
|
| Constand | Plaintiff in a civil suit |
Mentioned as the plaintiff in a civil suit against Cosby, during which Cosby gave deposition testimony.
|
| Attorney Schmitt | Civil attorney |
Identified as Cosby's civil attorney who provided testimony and represented Cosby during the initial investigation an...
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Superior Court | government agency |
The judicial body that reviewed and rejected Cosby's appeal, concluding he was not immune from prosecution.
|
| Commonwealth | government agency |
The prosecuting entity in the case against Cosby. The document notes that only a court order makes immunity legally b...
|
Timeline (3 events)
The Superior Court concluded that Cosby was not immune from prosecution because D.A. Castor failed to obtain a formal immunity order.
Commonwealth
Cosby's deposition testimony in Constand's civil suit, where he decided not to invoke the Fifth Amendment.
An initial investigation during which Attorney Schmitt allowed Cosby to give a statement to the police.
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
The jurisdiction where the legal proceedings are taking place, where a court order is required for immunity to be leg...
|
Relationships (3)
Attorney Schmitt is identified as Cosby's civil attorney who represented him during an investigation and deposition.
Mr. Castor, a D.A., made a promise not to prosecute Cosby, which Cosby later relied upon in his legal defense.
Key Quotes (5)
"ascertain no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s determination that [Cosby] was not immune from prosecution, because Mr. Castor failed to seek or obtain an immunity order pursuant to Section 5947."Source
— Superior Court
(The court's conclusion regarding the trial court's decision on Cosby's immunity status.)
DOJ-OGR-00004857.jpg
Quote #1
"Only a court order conveying such immunity is legally binding in this Commonwealth."Source
— Superior Court
(The court's statement on the legal requirement for immunity.)
DOJ-OGR-00004857.jpg
Quote #2
"it was not reasonable for [Cosby] to rely on Mr. Castor’s promise, even if the trial court had found credible the testimony provided by Mr. Castor and [Cosby’s] civil attorney,"Source
— Superior Court panel
(The panel's opinion on the reasonableness of Cosby's reliance on the D.A.'s promise.)
DOJ-OGR-00004857.jpg
Quote #3
"We cannot deem reasonable [Cosby’s] reliance on such a promise when he was represented by counsel, especially when immunity can only be granted by a court order, and where no court order granting him immunity existed."Source
— Superior Court panel
(The panel's stated reasoning for finding Cosby's reliance on the promise unreasonable.)
DOJ-OGR-00004857.jpg
Quote #4
"virtually no evidence in the record that [Cosby] actually declined to assert his Fifth Amendment rights at the civil deposition based on Mr. Castor’s purported promise not to prosecute."Source
— Superior Court
(The court's opinion on the lack of evidence supporting Cosby's claim of reliance.)
DOJ-OGR-00004857.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,174 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 45 of 80
court . . . .” Id. (quoting 42 Pa.C.S. § 5947(b)). Because no such order existed here, the
Superior Court concluded that it could “ascertain no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s
determination that [Cosby] was not immune from prosecution, because Mr. Castor failed
to seek or obtain an immunity order pursuant to Section 5947.” Id. at 412. “Only a court
order conveying such immunity is legally binding in this Commonwealth.” Id.
Superior Court concluded that it could “ascertain no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s
determination that [Cosby] was not immune from prosecution, because Mr. Castor failed
to seek or obtain an immunity order pursuant to Section 5947.” Id. at 412. “Only a court
order conveying such immunity is legally binding in this Commonwealth.” Id.
The Superior Court further rejected Cosby’s invocation of promissory estoppel
asserting reliance upon D.A. Castor’s assurances, as demonstrated by Cosby’s
cooperation with Constand’s civil suit and his decision not to invoke the Fifth Amendment
during his deposition testimony. The panel opined that Cosby failed to cite sufficient
authority to establish that a prosecution may be barred under a promissory estoppel
theory. The panel further agreed with the trial court that, in any event, “it was not
reasonable for [Cosby] to rely on Mr. Castor’s promise, even if the trial court had found
credible the testimony provided by Mr. Castor and [Cosby’s] civil attorney,” Attorney
Schmitt. Id. The panel stated: “We cannot deem reasonable [Cosby’s] reliance on such
a promise when he was represented by counsel, especially when immunity can only be
granted by a court order, and where no court order granting him immunity existed.” Id. at
413.
asserting reliance upon D.A. Castor’s assurances, as demonstrated by Cosby’s
cooperation with Constand’s civil suit and his decision not to invoke the Fifth Amendment
during his deposition testimony. The panel opined that Cosby failed to cite sufficient
authority to establish that a prosecution may be barred under a promissory estoppel
theory. The panel further agreed with the trial court that, in any event, “it was not
reasonable for [Cosby] to rely on Mr. Castor’s promise, even if the trial court had found
credible the testimony provided by Mr. Castor and [Cosby’s] civil attorney,” Attorney
Schmitt. Id. The panel stated: “We cannot deem reasonable [Cosby’s] reliance on such
a promise when he was represented by counsel, especially when immunity can only be
granted by a court order, and where no court order granting him immunity existed.” Id. at
413.
The Superior Court further opined that there was “virtually no evidence in the
record that [Cosby] actually declined to assert his Fifth Amendment rights at the civil
deposition based on Mr. Castor’s purported promise not to prosecute.” Id. Although the
court noted that Attorney Schmitt was the only witness who could testify that Cosby
indeed relied upon Castor’s purported promise during his deposition (Attorney Schmitt
did so testify), it emphasized the Commonwealth’s argument that Attorney Schmitt
allowed Cosby to give a statement to the police during the initial investigation, that Cosby
did not incriminate himself at that point, that Attorney Schmitt further negotiated with the
record that [Cosby] actually declined to assert his Fifth Amendment rights at the civil
deposition based on Mr. Castor’s purported promise not to prosecute.” Id. Although the
court noted that Attorney Schmitt was the only witness who could testify that Cosby
indeed relied upon Castor’s purported promise during his deposition (Attorney Schmitt
did so testify), it emphasized the Commonwealth’s argument that Attorney Schmitt
allowed Cosby to give a statement to the police during the initial investigation, that Cosby
did not incriminate himself at that point, that Attorney Schmitt further negotiated with the
[J-100-2020] - 44
DOJ-OGR-00004857
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document