DOJ-OGR-00004840.jpg
684 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / court exhibit (excerpt from pennsylvania supreme court opinion cited in federal case)
File Size:
684 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a legal filing (Exhibit attached to Document 310-1 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on July 2, 2021. It presents an excerpt from a Pennsylvania Supreme Court opinion ([J-100-2020]) regarding Commonwealth v. Cosby. The text analyzes whether former D.A. Castor had a valid non-prosecution agreement with Bill Cosby, concluding that the interaction was an 'unauthorized contemplation of transactional immunity' that did not comply with Pennsylvania statutes. This legal precedent regarding immunity deals is likely being cited in the Maxwell/Epstein proceedings to argue the validity or invalidity of similar non-prosecution agreements.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Constand | Victim |
Referenced as the victim in a sexual assault case involving Cosby.
|
| Cosby | Defendant |
Bill Cosby; referenced regarding a potential non-prosecution agreement and sexual assault allegations.
|
| Castor | Former District Attorney |
Former D.A. who allegedly interacted with Cosby regarding immunity/non-prosecution.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Commonwealth |
Refers to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania prosecuting authority.
|
|
| Trial Court |
The lower court that denied the motion regarding the non-prosecution agreement.
|
|
| Department of Justice |
Implied by footer 'DOJ-OGR'.
|
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location of Cosby's home where sexual assaults allegedly occurred.
|
|
|
Jurisdiction of the immunity statute (42 Pa.C.S. § 5947).
|
Key Quotes (3)
"[s]o if they had evidence that some of these other women had been sexually assaulted at Cosby’s home in Cheltenham, then I thought they could go ahead with the prosecution of that other case..."Source
DOJ-OGR-00004840.jpg
Quote #1
"The trial court found no authority for the 'proposition that a prosecutor may unilaterally confer transactional immunity through a declaration as the sovereign.'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00004840.jpg
Quote #2
"...incomplete and unauthorized contemplation of transactional immunity."Source
DOJ-OGR-00004840.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,958 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 28 of 80
for the sexual assault crime in the Constand case.” N.T., 2/2/2016, at 224-25. He
continued, “[s]o if they had evidence that some of these other women had been sexually
assaulted at Cosby’s home in Cheltenham, then I thought they could go ahead with the
prosecution of that other case with some other victim, so long as they realized they could
not use the Constand deposition and anything derived therefrom.” Id.
continued, “[s]o if they had evidence that some of these other women had been sexually
assaulted at Cosby’s home in Cheltenham, then I thought they could go ahead with the
prosecution of that other case with some other victim, so long as they realized they could
not use the Constand deposition and anything derived therefrom.” Id.
As noted, the trial court denied the motion, finding that then-D.A. Castor never, in
fact, reached an agreement with Cosby, or even promised Cosby that the Commonwealth
would not prosecute him for assaulting Constand. T.C.O. at 62. Instead, the trial court
considered the interaction between the former district attorney and Cosby to be an
incomplete and unauthorized contemplation of transactional immunity. The trial court
found no authority for the “proposition that a prosecutor may unilaterally confer
transactional immunity through a declaration as the sovereign.” Id. Rather, the court
noted, such immunity can be conferred only upon strict compliance with Pennsylvania’s
immunity statute, which is codified at 42 Pa.C.S. § 5947.14 Per the terms of the statute,
fact, reached an agreement with Cosby, or even promised Cosby that the Commonwealth
would not prosecute him for assaulting Constand. T.C.O. at 62. Instead, the trial court
considered the interaction between the former district attorney and Cosby to be an
incomplete and unauthorized contemplation of transactional immunity. The trial court
found no authority for the “proposition that a prosecutor may unilaterally confer
transactional immunity through a declaration as the sovereign.” Id. Rather, the court
noted, such immunity can be conferred only upon strict compliance with Pennsylvania’s
immunity statute, which is codified at 42 Pa.C.S. § 5947.14 Per the terms of the statute,
14 The immunity statute provides, in relevant part:
(a) General rule.--Immunity orders shall be available under this section in
all proceedings before:
(1) Courts.
(a) General rule.--Immunity orders shall be available under this section in
all proceedings before:
(1) Courts.
* * *
(b) Request and issuance.--The Attorney General or a district attorney
may request an immunity order from any judge of a designated court, and
that judge shall issue such an order, when in the judgment of the Attorney
General or district attorney:
may request an immunity order from any judge of a designated court, and
that judge shall issue such an order, when in the judgment of the Attorney
General or district attorney:
(1) the testimony or other information from a witness may be
necessary to the public interest; and
necessary to the public interest; and
(2) a witness has refused or is likely to refuse to testify or provide
other information on the basis of his privilege against self-
incrimination.
other information on the basis of his privilege against self-
incrimination.
[J-100-2020] - 27
DOJ-OGR-00004840
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document