DOJ-OGR-00004860.jpg
796 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing / legal opinion (exhibit)
File Size:
796 KB
Summary
This document is page 48 of a court filing (Exhibit 310-1) from the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on July 2, 2021. However, the content of the page is an excerpt from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court opinion *Commonwealth v. Cosby* (2020), detailing the legal issues surrounding Bill Cosby's appeal, specifically concerning a non-prosecution agreement made by District Attorney Castor in 2005. This legal precedent regarding non-prosecution agreements was likely cited by Maxwell's defense team to argue similar issues regarding Epstein's plea deal.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Bill Cosby | Defendant/Appellant |
Subject of the legal opinion regarding sexual assault charges and a non-prosecution agreement.
|
| Bruce Castor | District Attorney |
Former DA who agreed not to prosecute Cosby to force civil deposition testimony.
|
| Andrea Constand | Victim/Plaintiff |
Alleged victim in the 2004 sexual abuse case and plaintiff in the related civil action.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Commonwealth of Pennsylvania |
The state authority prosecuting Cosby.
|
|
| Supreme Court of Pennsylvania |
The court issuing the opinion (implied by citation 'Pa. 2020').
|
|
| Department of Justice |
Indicated by footer DOJ-OGR (Office of Government Relations).
|
Timeline (3 events)
February 17, 2005
District Attorney Castor announced he would not prosecute Cosby.
Pennsylvania
June 23, 2020
Court granted Cosby's petition for allowance of appeal.
Pennsylvania
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Jurisdiction of the legal case.
|
Relationships (2)
Castor agreed that Cosby would not be prosecuted in order to force testimony.
Reference to 2004 sexual abuse that Constand alleged and civil action.
Key Quotes (3)
"On June 23, 2020, this Court granted Cosby’s petition for allowance of appeal, limited to the following two issues"Source
DOJ-OGR-00004860.jpg
Quote #1
"(2) Where: (a) [District Attorney Castor] agreed that [Cosby] would not be prosecuted in order to force [Cosby’s] testimony at a deposition in [Constand’s] civil action"Source
DOJ-OGR-00004860.jpg
Quote #2
"On February 17, 2005, then-District Attorney Castor announced to the public... that he would not prosecute Cosby for any offense related to the 2004 sexual abuse that Constand alleged."Source
DOJ-OGR-00004860.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,337 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 48 of 80
II. Issues:
On June 23, 2020, this Court granted Cosby’s petition for allowance of appeal,
limited to the following two issues:
limited to the following two issues:
(1) Where allegations of uncharged misconduct involving sexual contact
with five women (and a de facto sixth) and the use of Quaaludes were
admitted at trial through the women’s live testimony and [Cosby’s] civil
deposition testimony despite: (a) being unduly remote in time in that the
allegations were more than fifteen years old and, in some instances, dated
back to the 1970s; (b) lacking any striking similarities or close factual nexus
to the conduct for which [Cosby] was on trial; (c) being unduly prejudicial;
(d) being not actually probative of the crimes for which [Cosby] was on trial;
and (e) constituting nothing but improper propensity evidence, did the Panel
err in affirming the admission of this evidence?
with five women (and a de facto sixth) and the use of Quaaludes were
admitted at trial through the women’s live testimony and [Cosby’s] civil
deposition testimony despite: (a) being unduly remote in time in that the
allegations were more than fifteen years old and, in some instances, dated
back to the 1970s; (b) lacking any striking similarities or close factual nexus
to the conduct for which [Cosby] was on trial; (c) being unduly prejudicial;
(d) being not actually probative of the crimes for which [Cosby] was on trial;
and (e) constituting nothing but improper propensity evidence, did the Panel
err in affirming the admission of this evidence?
(2) Where: (a) [District Attorney Castor] agreed that [Cosby] would not be
prosecuted in order to force [Cosby’s] testimony at a deposition in
[Constand’s] civil action; (b) [the district attorney] issued a formal public
statement reflecting that agreement; and (c) [Cosby] reasonably relied upon
those oral and written statements by providing deposition testimony in the
civil action, thus forfeiting his constitutional right against self-incrimination,
did the Panel err in affirming the trial court’s decision to allow not only the
prosecution of [Cosby] but the admission of [Cosby’s] civil deposition
testimony?
prosecuted in order to force [Cosby’s] testimony at a deposition in
[Constand’s] civil action; (b) [the district attorney] issued a formal public
statement reflecting that agreement; and (c) [Cosby] reasonably relied upon
those oral and written statements by providing deposition testimony in the
civil action, thus forfeiting his constitutional right against self-incrimination,
did the Panel err in affirming the trial court’s decision to allow not only the
prosecution of [Cosby] but the admission of [Cosby’s] civil deposition
testimony?
Commonwealth v. Cosby, 236 A.3d 1045 (Pa. 2020) (per curiam).20
III. Analysis
We begin with Cosby’s second listed issue, because, if he is correct that the
Commonwealth was precluded from prosecuting him, then the question of whether the
prior bad act testimony satisfied Rule 404(b) will become moot.
Commonwealth was precluded from prosecuting him, then the question of whether the
prior bad act testimony satisfied Rule 404(b) will become moot.
On February 17, 2005, then-District Attorney Castor announced to the public, on
behalf of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, that he would not prosecute Cosby for any
offense related to the 2004 sexual abuse that Constand alleged. Constand’s potential
behalf of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, that he would not prosecute Cosby for any
offense related to the 2004 sexual abuse that Constand alleged. Constand’s potential
20 In his petition, Cosby also sought this Court’s review of his claim of improper juror
bias and his challenge to the constitutionality of SORNA. We denied allocatur as to those
two claims.
bias and his challenge to the constitutionality of SORNA. We denied allocatur as to those
two claims.
[J-100-2020] - 47
DOJ-OGR-00004860
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document