Commonwealth
OrganizationRelationship Network
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Criminal trial | Cosby's criminal trial where D.A. Castor's successors used Cosby's prior sworn inculpatory testim... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Second jury trial of Bill Cosby | Pennsylvania Court | View |
DOJ-OGR-00020813.jpg
This document is page 4 of a legal opinion (Case 22-1426) dated February 28, 2023. The court rejects Ghislaine Maxwell's arguments that the *Commonwealth v. Cosby* decision or the *Annabi* precedent should prevent her prosecution. The court rules that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) from one district does not bind another district in this context, distinguishing her situation from Bill Cosby's case where a specific promise not to prosecute was made by a district attorney.
DOJ-OGR-00004892.jpg
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.
DOJ-OGR-00004891.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a legal opinion (likely the PA Supreme Court ruling in Commonwealth v. Cosby) filed as an exhibit in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The text argues that Bill Cosby's due process rights were violated by D.A. Castor's promise not to prosecute, which compelled Cosby to testify in a civil suit. The court concludes that the only appropriate remedy is to discharge Cosby and bar future prosecution, establishing a legal precedent presumably being used by Maxwell's defense regarding her own non-prosecution agreement arguments.
DOJ-OGR-00004888.jpg
This document is page 76 of a legal filing submitted on July 2, 2021, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The text is an excerpt from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court opinion (J-100-2020) overturning Bill Cosby's conviction, specifically discussing the binding nature of prosecutorial promises and due process. It appears to be submitted by the defense as legal precedent to argue for the enforcement of a non-prosecution agreement (likely the Epstein NPA).
DOJ-OGR-00004886.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on July 2, 2021. The text is an excerpt from a judicial opinion (likely the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling overturning Bill Cosby's conviction), which is being cited as a precedent. It discusses the principles of 'fundamental fairness' and 'detrimental reliance' regarding non-prosecution agreements/decisions by District Attorneys, arguing that the Montgomery County DA must abide by the former DA's promise not to prosecute Cosby. This was likely submitted by Maxwell's defense to argue that the Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement should similarly protect her.
DOJ-OGR-00004884.jpg
This legal document argues that a defendant's level of sophistication is an irrelevant and unfair metric for determining the reasonableness of their reliance on legal advice or prosecutorial decisions. It uses the case of Cosby, who, despite his wealth and media savvy, reasonably relied on District Attorney Castor's public promise not to prosecute, which resulted in Cosby providing self-incriminating testimony. The document asserts that Castor made this decision knowing it would induce Cosby's reliance.
DOJ-OGR-00004880.jpg
This legal document argues that Bill Cosby did not invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination during civil depositions because he reasonably relied on District Attorney Castor's decision not to prosecute him. This reliance led Cosby to provide incriminating testimony about his past drug use, which hindered his defense in the civil action brought by Constand and resulted in a significant financial settlement. The central legal question raised is whether Cosby's reliance on the prosecutor's assurance was reasonable.
DOJ-OGR-00004877.jpg
This legal document analyzes D.A. Castor's decision and press release concerning Cosby, asserting that Castor's intent was to induce Cosby's reliance, which led Cosby to testify in Constand's civil case without invoking his Fifth Amendment rights. The text further discusses the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, highlighting the right against self-incrimination as an "essential mainstay" of criminal justice, citing the Supreme Court case *Malloy v. Hogan*.
DOJ-OGR-00004872.jpg
This document is page 60 of 80 from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, Document 310-1) dated July 2, 2021. The text appears to be an excerpt from a judicial opinion (referenced as [J-100-2020]) discussing the legal principles of prosecutorial discretion and due process. It argues that while prosecutors have vast discretion in charging decisions, they must still act within constitutional boundaries, citing Commonwealth v. Kratsas (Pa. 2001).
DOJ-OGR-00004867.jpg
This document is page 55 of 80 from a legal filing (Document 310-1) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on July 2, 2021. The text is an excerpt from a legal opinion citing the precedent of *Commonwealth v. Zuber*, discussing the legal obligation of prosecutors to honor promises made during plea bargaining. This is likely included in a defense motion arguing for the enforcement of a non-prosecution agreement (likely the Epstein NPA) based on the principle of 'benefit of the bargain.'
DOJ-OGR-00004864.jpg
This document is page 52 of 80 from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on July 2, 2021. The text appears to be an excerpt from a judicial opinion (likely the PA Supreme Court case J-100-2020 regarding Commonwealth v. Cosby) discussing whether former D.A. Bruce Castor's promise not to prosecute Bill Cosby constituted a binding immunity agreement. The court concludes that Castor's actions were a unilateral exercise of prosecutorial discretion rather than a formal contract or quid pro quo exchange. This legal precedent regarding Non-Prosecution Agreements (NPAs) was likely cited in the Maxwell case to argue the validity or scope of the Epstein NPA.
DOJ-OGR-00004860.jpg
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.
DOJ-OGR-00004858.jpg
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.
DOJ-OGR-00004857.jpg
This legal document details the Superior Court's decision to reject Cosby's appeal for immunity from prosecution. The court ruled that any promise made by D.A. Castor was not legally binding without a formal court order, and it was unreasonable for Cosby, being represented by counsel, to rely on such an informal assurance. The court also found insufficient evidence that Cosby waived his Fifth Amendment rights in a civil deposition specifically because of Castor's promise.
DOJ-OGR-00004855.jpg
This document is page 43 of 80 from a legal filing in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on July 2, 2021. The text analyzes legal precedents from the Bill Cosby case (Commonwealth v. Cosby), focusing on the admissibility of 'prior bad acts' evidence, Rule 404(b), and the use of drugs (Quaaludes vs. Benadryl) to establish mens rea. It appears this case law is being cited to support arguments regarding evidence admissibility in the Maxwell trial.
DOJ-OGR-00004854.jpg
This legal document, a court filing from 2021-07-02, discusses the admissibility of 'prior bad acts' evidence in a case involving Cosby and Constad. The Superior Court affirmed that evidence of Cosby's 'unique sexual assault playbook' was admissible to demonstrate a common plan, despite dissimilarities in the nature and location of the alleged assaults and the temporal gap between them. The court emphasized that the pattern of behavior, rather than absolute identicality of incidents, determines admissibility under Rule 404(b).
DOJ-OGR-00004853.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed July 2, 2021. It contains a legal argument citing *Commonwealth v. Tyson* and the Bill Cosby case to discuss the admissibility of Rule 404(b) evidence ('prior bad acts') to establish a common plan or scheme. The text details the legal reasoning for admitting evidence of a prior rape conviction in the *Tyson* case despite a twelve-year gap, using this as precedent to discuss Constand's allegations against Cosby.
DOJ-OGR-00004851.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) citing the legal precedent of *Commonwealth v. Cosby*. The text details the court's reasoning for admitting 'prior bad acts' evidence (Rule 404(b)) and deposition testimony regarding Quaaludes in the Bill Cosby trial to prove intent and motive. It concludes with a summary of Cosby's conviction for aggravated indecent assault and his designation as a 'sexually violent predator' under SORNA.
DOJ-OGR-00004850.jpg
This document is page 38 of a legal filing from the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on July 2, 2021. It discusses legal arguments regarding the admissibility of 'prior bad acts' evidence and the 'doctrine of chances,' heavily citing Pennsylvania case law involving Bill Cosby (Commonwealth v. Cosby) and Andrea Constand. The text argues that the similarity of crimes can outweigh the remoteness in time between incidents.
DOJ-OGR-00004848.jpg
This document page discusses the legal reasoning behind admitting "prior bad act" testimony and deposition evidence regarding Quaaludes to establish a common plan or scheme by Cosby. It highlights similarities between past incidents and the current allegations, such as the victims' age, relationship establishment, and consumption of substances, while citing Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 404(b) regarding character evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00004844.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Exhibit in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) discussing the procedural history of the Bill Cosby sexual assault case. It details the mistrial in 2017, the subsequent motion to include 'prior bad acts' witnesses, and specifically introduces the testimony of Janice Baker-Kinney regarding an incident in Reno, Nevada in 1982. This document was likely submitted in the Maxwell case as legal precedent regarding the admission of testimony from prior accusers.
DOJ-OGR-00004842.jpg
This page is an excerpt from a legal opinion (likely Commonwealth v. Cosby) filed as an exhibit in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330). It discusses the court's rejection of Bill Cosby's claim that he had a non-prosecution agreement with former D.A. Castor. The court found that Cosby voluntarily spoke to police without invoking the Fifth Amendment and that reliance on a press release as a grant of immunity was unreasonable, especially since his attorneys failed to obtain the promise in writing. This legal precedent is likely being cited in the Maxwell case to argue about the validity or scope of non-prosecution agreements.
DOJ-OGR-00004840.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Exhibit attached to Document 310-1 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on July 2, 2021. It presents an excerpt from a Pennsylvania Supreme Court opinion ([J-100-2020]) regarding Commonwealth v. Cosby. The text analyzes whether former D.A. Castor had a valid non-prosecution agreement with Bill Cosby, concluding that the interaction was an 'unauthorized contemplation of transactional immunity' that did not comply with Pennsylvania statutes. This legal precedent regarding immunity deals is likely being cited in the Maxwell/Epstein proceedings to argue the validity or invalidity of similar non-prosecution agreements.
DOJ-OGR-00004839.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a legal filing (Document 310-1) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on July 2, 2021. However, the text itself is an excerpt from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court opinion ([J-100-2020]) regarding *Commonwealth v. Cosby*, discussing the non-prosecution agreement and civil depositions of Bill Cosby. The defense in the Maxwell case likely submitted this to argue legal precedent regarding Non-Prosecution Agreements (NPAs) and Fifth Amendment rights, drawing parallels between the Cosby and Epstein/Maxwell situations.
DOJ-OGR-00004837.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), but the content describes the legal precedent of *Commonwealth v. Cosby*. It details former DA Bruce Castor's testimony regarding his decision not to prosecute Bill Cosby in 2005 to facilitate a civil suit, asserting he did not grant permanent immunity. It includes testimony from Andrea Constand's attorneys stating they were unaware of any non-prosecution agreement at the time.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity