DOJ-OGR-00004841.jpg
772 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing (court opinion/exhibit)
File Size:
772 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a legal opinion (likely the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision in Commonwealth v. Cosby) filed as an exhibit in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It discusses the legal insufficiency of a 'press release' issued by D.A. Castor to grant immunity to Bill Cosby without court permission. The text cites Pennsylvania statutes regarding witness immunity and highlights the inconsistency of Castor's testimony regarding his intent.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| D.A. Castor | District Attorney (Former) |
His actions regarding an immunity offer were deemed defective by the trial court; his testimony was described as equi...
|
| Cosby | Defendant (implied) |
The subject of the immunity discussion; Attorney Troiani stated she never requested immunity for him.
|
| Attorney Troiani | Defense Attorney |
Her statements were credited by the court; she stated she never requested immunity for Cosby nor agreed to such an of...
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Trial Court |
Concluded the immunity offer was defective and invalid.
|
|
| Attorney General |
Mentioned in the cited statute regarding requesting immunity orders.
|
|
| Department of Justice |
Implied by Bates stamp prefix DOJ-OGR.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2021-07-02
Document filed in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell).
Federal Court (SDNY implied by case number)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Implied by the citation of Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes (Pa.C.S.).
|
Relationships (2)
Castor acted of his own volition regarding immunity for Cosby.
Troiani represented Cosby regarding immunity requests.
Key Quotes (4)
"permission from a court is a prerequisite to any offer of transactional immunity."Source
DOJ-OGR-00004841.jpg
Quote #1
"the 'press release, signed or not, was legally insufficient to form the basis of an enforceable promise not to prosecute.'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00004841.jpg
Quote #2
"Mr. Castor’s testimony about what he did and how he did it was equivocal at best."Source
DOJ-OGR-00004841.jpg
Quote #3
"The trial court specifically credited Attorney Troiani’s statements that she never requested that Cosby be provided with immunity and that she did not specifically agree to any such offer."Source
DOJ-OGR-00004841.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,280 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 29 of 80
permission from a court is a prerequisite to any offer of transactional immunity. See id.
§ 5947(b) (“The Attorney General or a district attorney may request an immunity order
from any judge of a designated court.”). Because D.A. Castor did not seek such
permission, and instead acted of his own volition, the trial court concluded that any
purported immunity offer was defective, and thus invalid. Consequently, according to the
trial court, the “press release, signed or not, was legally insufficient to form the basis of
an enforceable promise not to prosecute.” T.C.O. at 62.
§ 5947(b) (“The Attorney General or a district attorney may request an immunity order
from any judge of a designated court.”). Because D.A. Castor did not seek such
permission, and instead acted of his own volition, the trial court concluded that any
purported immunity offer was defective, and thus invalid. Consequently, according to the
trial court, the “press release, signed or not, was legally insufficient to form the basis of
an enforceable promise not to prosecute.” T.C.O. at 62.
The trial court also found that “Mr. Castor’s testimony about what he did and how
he did it was equivocal at best.” Id. at 63. The court deemed the former district attorney’s
characterization of his decision-making and intent to be inconsistent, inasmuch as he
testified at times that he intended transactional immunity, while asserting at other times
that he intended use and derivative-use immunity. The trial court specifically credited
Attorney Troiani’s statements that she never requested that Cosby be provided with
immunity and that she did not specifically agree to any such offer.
he did it was equivocal at best.” Id. at 63. The court deemed the former district attorney’s
characterization of his decision-making and intent to be inconsistent, inasmuch as he
testified at times that he intended transactional immunity, while asserting at other times
that he intended use and derivative-use immunity. The trial court specifically credited
Attorney Troiani’s statements that she never requested that Cosby be provided with
immunity and that she did not specifically agree to any such offer.
(c) Order to testify.--Whenever a witness refuses, on the basis of his
privilege against self-incrimination, to testify or provide other information in
a proceeding specified in subsection (a), and the person presiding at such
proceeding communicates to the witness an immunity order, that witness
may not refuse to testify based on his privilege against self-incrimination.
privilege against self-incrimination, to testify or provide other information in
a proceeding specified in subsection (a), and the person presiding at such
proceeding communicates to the witness an immunity order, that witness
may not refuse to testify based on his privilege against self-incrimination.
(d) Limitation on use.--No testimony or other information compelled under
an immunity order, or any information directly or indirectly derived from such
testimony or other information, may be used against a witness in any
criminal case, except that such information may be used:
an immunity order, or any information directly or indirectly derived from such
testimony or other information, may be used against a witness in any
criminal case, except that such information may be used:
(1) in a prosecution under 18 Pa.C.S. § 4902 (relating to perjury) or
under 18 Pa.C.S. § 4903 (relating to false swearing);
under 18 Pa.C.S. § 4903 (relating to false swearing);
(2) in a contempt proceeding for failure to comply with an immunity
order; or
order; or
(3) as evidence, where otherwise admissible, in any proceeding
where the witness is not a criminal defendant.
where the witness is not a criminal defendant.
42 Pa.C.S. § 5947(a)-(d).
[J-100-2020] - 28
DOJ-OGR-00004841
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document