DOJ-OGR-00004862.jpg
724 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
724 KB
Summary
This legal document page discusses a trial court's findings following a habeas corpus hearing concerning an alleged non-prosecution agreement between former District Attorney Castor and Cosby. The court determined that no formal promise was made, characterizing the interaction as a failed attempt to secure a statutory immunity agreement. The document also notes the court found Castor's testimony inconsistent and that Castor claimed his authority to grant immunity was based on common law, not statute.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Cosby |
Subject of a potential non-prosecution agreement with D.A. Castor. The trial court determined no formal promise was e...
|
|
| D.A. Castor | District Attorney |
Mentioned as having interacted with Cosby regarding a potential non-prosecution agreement. The court found he did not...
|
| Castor | former District Attorney |
Testified at a habeas hearing that he intended to provide Cosby with transactional immunity based on common-law autho...
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| appellate courts | government agency |
Mentioned as having the power to draw their own inferences and make their own deductions and conclusions.
|
| trial court | government agency |
Presided over the habeas corpus hearing and made findings of fact regarding the interaction between D.A. Castor and C...
|
Timeline (2 events)
A habeas corpus hearing where the trial court viewed and heard witnesses and their testimonies regarding a potential non-prosecution agreement for Cosby.
Relationships (1)
The document describes an interaction between them characterized by the court as a 'failed attempt to reach a statutorily prescribed transactional immunity agreement'. The court found Castor's testimony about their legal relationship to be 'inconsistent and “equivocal at best.”'
Key Quotes (5)
"appellate courts have the power to draw their own inferences and make their own deductions and conclusions."Source
— In re Pruner’s Est.
(Cited as legal precedent regarding the power of appellate courts.)
DOJ-OGR-00004862.jpg
Quote #1
"inconsistent and “equivocal at best.”"Source
— trial court
(The trial court's conclusion regarding the former district attorney's testimony about his legal relationship with Cosby.)
DOJ-OGR-00004862.jpg
Quote #2
"may request an immunity order from any judge of a designated court."Source
— 42 Pa.C.S. § 5947(b)
(Quoted from a statute describing the process for a prosecutor to formalize an immunity agreement.)
DOJ-OGR-00004862.jpg
Quote #3
"shall issue such an order,"Source
— 42 Pa.C.S. § 5947
(Quoted from a statute describing the court's obligation when presented with a request for an immunity order.)
DOJ-OGR-00004862.jpg
Quote #4
"may not refuse to testify based on his privilege against self-incrimination."Source
— 42 Pa.C.S. § 5947(c)
(Quoted from a statute describing the effect of an immunity order on a witness.)
DOJ-OGR-00004862.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,089 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 50 of 80
law, . . . appellate courts have the power to draw their own inferences and make their own deductions and conclusions.” In re Pruner’s Est., 162 A.2d 626, 631 (Pa. 1960) (citations omitted).
Here, the trial court presided over the habeas corpus hearing, viewing and hearing the witnesses and their testimonies first-hand. From that vantage point, the trial court determined that, as a matter of fact, D.A. Castor had not extended a formal promise to Cosby never to prosecute him, let alone consummated a formal non-prosecution agreement with Cosby. The factual basis for the court’s findings was two-fold. First, the court characterized the interaction between the district attorney and Cosby as a failed attempt to reach a statutorily prescribed transactional immunity agreement. Second, the court concluded that the former district attorney’s testimony regarding the legal relationship between him and Cosby was inconsistent and “equivocal at best.” T.C.O. at 63. Both findings are supported adequately by the record.
Pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 5947, when a prosecutor wishes to formalize an immunity agreement, he or she “may request an immunity order from any judge of a designated court.” Id. § 5947(b). Presented with such a request, the petitioned court “shall issue such an order,” id., upon which a witness “may not refuse to testify based on his privilege against self-incrimination.” Id. § 5947(c). At the habeas hearing, former District Attorney Castor testified that he intended to provide Cosby with transactional immunity. He explained that this conferral was predicated upon the state’s common-law authority as a sovereign rather than any statutory provisions or protocols. T.C.O. at 57 (citing N.T., 2/2/2016, at 232, 234, 236). The record does not contradict his testimony. There is no evidence, nor any real contention, that the parties even contemplated a grant of immunity under Section 5947. The trial court’s finding that the interaction between D.A. Castor and
[J-100-2020] - 49
DOJ-OGR-00004862
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document