DOJ-OGR-00004892.jpg
624 KB
Extraction Summary
9
People
3
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing / legal opinion (exhibit)
File Size:
624 KB
Summary
This document is the final page (80 of 80) of a legal filing in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on July 2, 2021. The content is an excerpt from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's opinion vacating Bill Cosby's conviction, focusing on the concept of 'fundamental fairness' regarding prosecutorial discretion and non-prosecution agreements. This precedent was likely submitted by the defense to argue regarding the validity of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) previously granted to Jeffrey Epstein.
People (9)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Cosby | Defendant |
Subject of the legal opinion; convictions vacated and discharged
|
| Todd | Justice |
Joins the majority opinion
|
| Donohue | Justice |
Joins the majority opinion
|
| Mundy | Justice |
Joins the majority opinion
|
| Dougherty | Justice |
Files a concurring and dissenting opinion
|
| Baer | Chief Justice |
Joins Dougherty's concurring and dissenting opinion
|
| Saylor | Justice |
Files a dissenting opinion
|
| DiPasquale | Cited Defendant |
Referenced in case citation Commonwealth v. DiPasquale
|
| Myers | Cited Defendant |
Referenced in case citation State v. Myers
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Commonwealth |
Refers to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
|
|
| Department of Justice |
Implied by footer stamp DOJ-OGR
|
|
| Supreme Court of Pennsylvania |
Implied by the list of Justices and case context
|
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Jurisdiction of the Commonwealth and cited case law
|
|
|
Jurisdiction of cited case State v. Myers (W.Va.)
|
Key Quotes (3)
"For these reasons, Cosby’s convictions and judgment of sentence are vacated, and he is discharged."Source
DOJ-OGR-00004892.jpg
Quote #1
"When an unconditional charging decision is made publicly and with the intent to induce action and reliance by the defendant... denying the defendant the benefit of that decision is an affront to fundamental fairness"Source
DOJ-OGR-00004892.jpg
Quote #2
"No mere changing of the guard strips that circumstance of its inequity."Source
DOJ-OGR-00004892.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,727 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 80 of 80
Commonwealth v. DiPasquale, 246 A.2d 430, 432 (Pa. 1968)). The decision to charge,
or not to charge, a defendant can be conditioned, modified, or revoked at the discretion
of the prosecutor.
or not to charge, a defendant can be conditioned, modified, or revoked at the discretion
of the prosecutor.
However, the discretion vested in our Commonwealth’s prosecutors, however
vast, does not mean that its exercise is free of the constraints of due process. When an
unconditional charging decision is made publicly and with the intent to induce action and
reliance by the defendant, and when the defendant does so to his detriment (and in some
instances upon the advice of counsel), denying the defendant the benefit of that decision
is an affront to fundamental fairness, particularly when it results in a criminal prosecution
that was foregone for more than a decade. No mere changing of the guard strips that
circumstance of its inequity. See, e.g., State v. Myers, 513 S.E.2d 676, 682 n.1 (W.Va.
1998) (explaining that “any change in the duly elected prosecutor does not affect the
standard of responsibility for the office”). A contrary result would be patently untenable.
It would violate long-cherished principles of fundamental fairness. It would be antithetical
to, and corrosive of, the integrity and functionality of the criminal justice system that we
strive to maintain.
vast, does not mean that its exercise is free of the constraints of due process. When an
unconditional charging decision is made publicly and with the intent to induce action and
reliance by the defendant, and when the defendant does so to his detriment (and in some
instances upon the advice of counsel), denying the defendant the benefit of that decision
is an affront to fundamental fairness, particularly when it results in a criminal prosecution
that was foregone for more than a decade. No mere changing of the guard strips that
circumstance of its inequity. See, e.g., State v. Myers, 513 S.E.2d 676, 682 n.1 (W.Va.
1998) (explaining that “any change in the duly elected prosecutor does not affect the
standard of responsibility for the office”). A contrary result would be patently untenable.
It would violate long-cherished principles of fundamental fairness. It would be antithetical
to, and corrosive of, the integrity and functionality of the criminal justice system that we
strive to maintain.
For these reasons, Cosby’s convictions and judgment of sentence are vacated,
and he is discharged.35
and he is discharged.35
Justices Todd, Donohue and Mundy join the opinion.
Justice Dougherty files a concurring and dissenting opinion in which
Chief Justice Baer joins.
Chief Justice Baer joins.
Justice Saylor files a dissenting opinion.
35 Accordingly, we do not address Cosby’s other issue.
[J-100-2020] - 79
DOJ-OGR-00004892
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document