DOJ-OGR-00004891.jpg
708 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / court opinion excerpt (exhibit in us v. ghislaine maxwell)
File Size:
708 KB
Summary
This document is an excerpt from a legal opinion (likely the PA Supreme Court ruling in Commonwealth v. Cosby) filed as an exhibit in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The text argues that Bill Cosby's due process rights were violated by D.A. Castor's promise not to prosecute, which compelled Cosby to testify in a civil suit. The court concludes that the only appropriate remedy is to discharge Cosby and bar future prosecution, establishing a legal precedent presumably being used by Maxwell's defense regarding her own non-prosecution agreement arguments.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Cosby | Defendant (Bill Cosby) |
Subject of the legal opinion regarding due process violations and non-prosecution promises.
|
| D.A. Castor | District Attorney |
Made the 'public proclamation' that Cosby would not be prosecuted, creating the reliance issue.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| CDO |
Commonwealth entity arguing against barring prosecution.
|
|
| Commonwealth |
Refers to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (prosecution side).
|
|
| DOJ-OGR |
Department of Justice - Office of Government Relations (indicated in footer stamp).
|
Relationships (1)
Castor's compulsion of Cosby's reliance upon a public proclamation.
Key Quotes (3)
"He must be discharged, and any future prosecution on these particular charges must be barred."Source
DOJ-OGR-00004891.jpg
Quote #1
"Society’s interest in prosecution does not displace the remedy due to constitutionally aggrieved persons."Source
DOJ-OGR-00004891.jpg
Quote #2
"All of this started with D.A. Castor’s compulsion of Cosby’s reliance upon a public proclamation that Cosby would not be prosecuted."Source
DOJ-OGR-00004891.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,041 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 79 of 80
constitutional right, was compelled to participate in a civil case after losing that right,
testified against his own interests, weakened his position there and ultimately settled the
case for a large sum of money, was tried twice in criminal court, was convicted, and has
served several years in prison. All of this started with D.A. Castor’s compulsion of Cosby’s
reliance upon a public proclamation that Cosby would not be prosecuted. The CDO’s
remedy for all of this would include subjecting Cosby to a third criminal trial. That is no
remedy at all. Rather, it is an approach that would place Cosby nowhere near where he
was before the due process violation took root.
testified against his own interests, weakened his position there and ultimately settled the
case for a large sum of money, was tried twice in criminal court, was convicted, and has
served several years in prison. All of this started with D.A. Castor’s compulsion of Cosby’s
reliance upon a public proclamation that Cosby would not be prosecuted. The CDO’s
remedy for all of this would include subjecting Cosby to a third criminal trial. That is no
remedy at all. Rather, it is an approach that would place Cosby nowhere near where he
was before the due process violation took root.
There is only one remedy that can completely restore Cosby to the status quo ante.
He must be discharged, and any future prosecution on these particular charges must be
barred. We do not dispute that this remedy is both severe and rare. But it is warranted
here, indeed compelled. The CDO would shun this remedy because (at least in part) it
might thwart the “public interest in having the guilty brought to book.”34 It cannot be
gainsaid that society holds a strong interest in the prosecution of crimes. It is also true
that no such interest, however important, ever can eclipse society’s interest in ensuring
that the constitutional rights of the people are vindicated. Society’s interest in prosecution
does not displace the remedy due to constitutionally aggrieved persons.
He must be discharged, and any future prosecution on these particular charges must be
barred. We do not dispute that this remedy is both severe and rare. But it is warranted
here, indeed compelled. The CDO would shun this remedy because (at least in part) it
might thwart the “public interest in having the guilty brought to book.”34 It cannot be
gainsaid that society holds a strong interest in the prosecution of crimes. It is also true
that no such interest, however important, ever can eclipse society’s interest in ensuring
that the constitutional rights of the people are vindicated. Society’s interest in prosecution
does not displace the remedy due to constitutionally aggrieved persons.
IV. Conclusion
We do not question the discretion that is vested in prosecutors “over whether
charges should be brought in any given case.” Stipetich, 652 A.2d at 1295. We will not
undermine a prosecutor’s “general and widely recognized power to conduct criminal
litigation and prosecutions on behalf of the Commonwealth, and to decide whether and
when to prosecute, and whether and when to continue or discontinue a case.” Id. (quoting
charges should be brought in any given case.” Stipetich, 652 A.2d at 1295. We will not
undermine a prosecutor’s “general and widely recognized power to conduct criminal
litigation and prosecutions on behalf of the Commonwealth, and to decide whether and
when to prosecute, and whether and when to continue or discontinue a case.” Id. (quoting
34 See CDO (quoting Blue, 384 U.S. at 255).
[J-100-2020] - 78
DOJ-OGR-00004891
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document