DOJ-OGR-00004859.jpg
782 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / case law citation (exhibit)
File Size:
782 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a legal filing in the case *United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell* (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on July 2, 2021. However, the text itself is an excerpt from a judicial opinion regarding *Commonwealth v. Cosby* (the Bill Cosby case), specifically discussing the legal standards for non-prosecution agreements and immunity. It analyzes whether a defendant (Cosby) reasonably relied on a District Attorney's (Castor) promise not to prosecute when providing deposition testimony. This precedent was likely cited in the Maxwell case to argue regarding the validity or applicability of the Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| George Stipetich | Defendant (Cited Case) |
Mentioned in a legal precedent regarding non-prosecution agreements and unfair prosecution.
|
| Cosby | Defendant (Bill Cosby) |
Subject of the legal analysis regarding non-prosecution agreements, reliance on promises, and civil depositions.
|
| Castor | Former District Attorney |
Testified that there was no agreement or quid pro quo with Cosby; his testimony was found not credible by the trial c...
|
| Schmitt | Attorney |
Provided testimony premised on information received from Mr. Castor; testimony found not credible.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Superior Court |
Judicial body that reviewed the trial court's findings regarding Cosby and Stipetich.
|
|
| Trial Court |
Made factual findings and credibility determinations regarding Castor and Schmitt.
|
Key Quotes (4)
"The decisions below, barring prosecution of the Stipetiches, embodied concern that allowing charges to be brought after George Stipetich had performed his part of the agreement... would be fundamentally unfair"Source
DOJ-OGR-00004859.jpg
Quote #1
"former D.A. Castor testified that there was no 'agreement' or 'quid pro quo' with Cosby"Source
DOJ-OGR-00004859.jpg
Quote #2
"The trial court had 'determined that Mr. Castor’s testimony... were not credible.'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00004859.jpg
Quote #3
"no agreement or grant of immunity was made, and that [Cosby] did not reasonably rely on any overtures by Mr. Castor"Source
DOJ-OGR-00004859.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,281 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 47 of 80
The decisions below, barring prosecution of the Stipetiches, embodied
concern that allowing charges to be brought after George Stipetich had
performed his part of the agreement by answering questions about sources
of the contraband discovered in his residence would be fundamentally unfair
because in answering the questions he may have disclosed information that
could be used against him. The proper response to this concern is not to
bar prosecution; rather, it is to suppress, at the appropriate juncture, any
detrimental evidence procured through the inaccurate representation that
he would not be prosecuted.
concern that allowing charges to be brought after George Stipetich had
performed his part of the agreement by answering questions about sources
of the contraband discovered in his residence would be fundamentally unfair
because in answering the questions he may have disclosed information that
could be used against him. The proper response to this concern is not to
bar prosecution; rather, it is to suppress, at the appropriate juncture, any
detrimental evidence procured through the inaccurate representation that
he would not be prosecuted.
Id. at 1296. Although the Superior Court dismissed this passage from Stipetich as dicta,
it found the situation distinguishable in any event inasmuch as former D.A. Castor testified
that there was no “agreement” or “quid pro quo” with Cosby, and, therefore, any reliance
that Cosby placed upon the district attorney’s promise was unreasonable. Cosby, 224
A.3d at 416-17.
it found the situation distinguishable in any event inasmuch as former D.A. Castor testified
that there was no “agreement” or “quid pro quo” with Cosby, and, therefore, any reliance
that Cosby placed upon the district attorney’s promise was unreasonable. Cosby, 224
A.3d at 416-17.
The Superior Court concluded that it was bound by the trial court’s factual findings
and by its credibility determinations. The trial court had “determined that Mr. Castor’s
testimony and, by implication, Attorney Schmitt’s testimony (which was premised upon
information he indirectly received from Mr. Castor) were not credible.” Id. at 417. The
panel added that the trial court had “found that the weight of the evidence supported its
finding that no agreement or grant of immunity was made, and that [Cosby] did not
reasonably rely on any overtures by Mr. Castor to that effect when he sat for his civil
deposition.” Id. Thus, the Superior Court discerned no error in the trial court’s decision
to allow the use of Cosby’s deposition testimony against him at trial.19
and by its credibility determinations. The trial court had “determined that Mr. Castor’s
testimony and, by implication, Attorney Schmitt’s testimony (which was premised upon
information he indirectly received from Mr. Castor) were not credible.” Id. at 417. The
panel added that the trial court had “found that the weight of the evidence supported its
finding that no agreement or grant of immunity was made, and that [Cosby] did not
reasonably rely on any overtures by Mr. Castor to that effect when he sat for his civil
deposition.” Id. Thus, the Superior Court discerned no error in the trial court’s decision
to allow the use of Cosby’s deposition testimony against him at trial.19
19 In addition to the Rule 404(b) and non-prosecutions claims, the Superior Court
rejected a number of other issues raised by Cosby, including an assertion of improper
juror bias, a challenge to an allegedly misleading jury instruction, and a contention that
SORNA was unconstitutional. Cosby, 224 A.3d at 396, 421-431. Because those issues
are not relevant to the matters before us, we need not discuss them herein.
rejected a number of other issues raised by Cosby, including an assertion of improper
juror bias, a challenge to an allegedly misleading jury instruction, and a contention that
SORNA was unconstitutional. Cosby, 224 A.3d at 396, 421-431. Because those issues
are not relevant to the matters before us, we need not discuss them herein.
[J-100-2020] - 46
DOJ-OGR-00004859
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document