DOJ-OGR-00004858.jpg
738 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
6
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
3
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing / legal brief (case 1:20-cr-00330-pae - united states v. ghislaine maxwell)
File Size:
738 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a legal filing in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) referencing the legal precedent of *Commonwealth v. Cosby*. It discusses the validity of non-prosecution agreements (NPAs), specifically analyzing why Cosby's claim of immunity based on a District Attorney's promise was rejected by the Superior Court. It also cites *Commonwealth v. Stipetich* to argue that police promises cannot bind a District Attorney's office to non-prosecution agreements.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Bill Cosby | Defendant (in referenced case) |
Subject of legal analysis regarding non-prosecution agreements and immunity.
|
| Attorney Schmitt | Attorney |
Negotiated settlement agreement for Cosby; testimony regarding non-prosecution promise was rejected.
|
| Andrea Constand | Plaintiff/Victim (implied) |
Party to a settlement agreement with Cosby involving a non-cooperation clause.
|
| Bruce Castor | District Attorney |
Alleged to have made a 'promise' not to prosecute Cosby.
|
| George Stipetich | Defendant (in precedent case) |
Promised immunity by police in exchange for information about drugs.
|
| Heidi Stipetich | Defendant (in precedent case) |
Promised immunity by police in exchange for information about drugs.
|
Organizations (6)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| National Enquirer |
Published an interview with Cosby.
|
|
| Superior Court |
Court that issued rulings in the Cosby case.
|
|
| Commonwealth |
Prosecution entity (Pennsylvania).
|
|
| Pittsburgh Police Department |
Made unauthorized non-prosecution promises in the Stipetich case.
|
|
| Allegheny County District Attorney's Office |
Prosecutorial authority in the Stipetich case.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (referenced in footer stamp DOJ-OGR).
|
Timeline (2 events)
1995 (approximate for decision)
Commonwealth v. Stipetich legal decision regarding police promises.
Pittsburgh, PA
Unknown
Settlement negotiation between Cosby (via Schmitt) and Constand.
Unknown
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location of police department in Stipetich case.
|
|
|
Jurisdiction mentioned in Stipetich case.
|
Relationships (3)
Attorney Schmitt negotiated a term of the settlement agreement...
Cosby claimed reliance on Mr. Castor's promise not to prosecute.
Pittsburgh police personnel had promised George and Heidi Stipetich...
Key Quotes (4)
"[i]t was not necessary for the trial court to specifically state that it rejected . . . Schmitt’s testimony, as it is patently obvious that his testimony belies his claim that there was some ‘promise’ from [Mr.] Castor not to prosecute."Source
DOJ-OGR-00004858.jpg
Quote #1
"the evidence was entirely inconsistent with [Cosby’s] alleged reliance on Mr. Castor’s promise in choosing not to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege in the civil suit."Source
DOJ-OGR-00004858.jpg
Quote #2
"contingent upon his claim that Mr. Castor unilaterally immunized [Cosby] from criminal prosecution, which we have already rejected."Source
DOJ-OGR-00004858.jpg
Quote #3
"This Court ultimately held that the Pittsburgh police department had no authority to bind the Allegheny County District Attorney’s Office to a non-prosecution agreement."Source
DOJ-OGR-00004858.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,144 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 46 of 80
National Enquirer on the details of its published interview with Cosby, and that Attorney
Schmitt negotiated a term of the settlement agreement with Constand that required her
assurance that she would not cooperate with any future criminal investigation. Thus, the
Commonwealth argued, and the Superior Court agreed, that “[i]t was not necessary for
the trial court to specifically state that it rejected . . . Schmitt’s testimony, as it is patently
obvious that his testimony belies his claim that there was some ‘promise’ from [Mr.] Castor
not to prosecute.” Id. (quoting Commonwealth’s Superior Court Brief at 136-37). The
Superior Court agreed that “the evidence was entirely inconsistent with [Cosby’s] alleged
reliance on Mr. Castor’s promise in choosing not to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege
in the civil suit.” Id. at 413-14.
Schmitt negotiated a term of the settlement agreement with Constand that required her
assurance that she would not cooperate with any future criminal investigation. Thus, the
Commonwealth argued, and the Superior Court agreed, that “[i]t was not necessary for
the trial court to specifically state that it rejected . . . Schmitt’s testimony, as it is patently
obvious that his testimony belies his claim that there was some ‘promise’ from [Mr.] Castor
not to prosecute.” Id. (quoting Commonwealth’s Superior Court Brief at 136-37). The
Superior Court agreed that “the evidence was entirely inconsistent with [Cosby’s] alleged
reliance on Mr. Castor’s promise in choosing not to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege
in the civil suit.” Id. at 413-14.
For the same reasons, the Superior Court rejected Cosby’s claim that the trial court
erred in failing to suppress his deposition testimony due to the immunity that he
purportedly should have enjoyed. The court opined that Cosby’s suppression argument
was “contingent upon his claim that Mr. Castor unilaterally immunized [Cosby] from
criminal prosecution, which we have already rejected.” Id. at 414. The panel
distinguished all of the precedents upon which Cosby relied, including this Court’s
decision in Commonwealth v. Stipetich, 652 A.2d 1294 (Pa. 1995).
erred in failing to suppress his deposition testimony due to the immunity that he
purportedly should have enjoyed. The court opined that Cosby’s suppression argument
was “contingent upon his claim that Mr. Castor unilaterally immunized [Cosby] from
criminal prosecution, which we have already rejected.” Id. at 414. The panel
distinguished all of the precedents upon which Cosby relied, including this Court’s
decision in Commonwealth v. Stipetich, 652 A.2d 1294 (Pa. 1995).
In Stipetich, Pittsburgh police personnel had promised George and Heidi Stipetich
that, if they answered questions about the source of the drugs found in their home, no
charges would be filed against them. After the Stipetiches fulfilled their part of the
agreement, prosecutors charged them anyway. Id. at 1294-95. The trial court granted
the Stipetiches’ motion to dismiss the charges on the basis of the police promise. Id. at
1295. This Court ultimately held that the Pittsburgh police department had no authority
to bind the Allegheny County District Attorney’s Office to a non-prosecution agreement.
Id. However, this Court opined:
that, if they answered questions about the source of the drugs found in their home, no
charges would be filed against them. After the Stipetiches fulfilled their part of the
agreement, prosecutors charged them anyway. Id. at 1294-95. The trial court granted
the Stipetiches’ motion to dismiss the charges on the basis of the police promise. Id. at
1295. This Court ultimately held that the Pittsburgh police department had no authority
to bind the Allegheny County District Attorney’s Office to a non-prosecution agreement.
Id. However, this Court opined:
[J-100-2020] - 45
DOJ-OGR-00004858
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document