Cosby
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
D.A. Castor
|
Legal representative |
11
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
Constand
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Bruce Castor
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Constad
|
Friend |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Cosby's attorneys
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
D.A. Castor
|
Prosecutor defendant initial decision |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
D.A. Castor's successors
|
Prosecutor defendant |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
D.A. Castor
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Constand
|
Accuser defendant |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
D.A. Castor
|
Prosecutor defendant |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Cosby's assistants
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Bruce Castor
|
Prosecutor subject |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Constand
|
Defendant victim |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Constad
|
Financial |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
John Schmitt
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Bruce L. Castor, Jr.
|
Prosecutor defendant |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Constand
|
Sexual contact disputed nature |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
one's attorneys
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Attorney Schmitt
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Castor
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Constand
|
Acquaintance |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Constand
|
Victim defendant cited case |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Constand
|
Unknown |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Nineteen Women
|
Alleged victims witnesses |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Constand
|
Accused accuser |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Trial court denied motion regarding non-prosecution agreement. | Pennsylvania Trial Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Two criminal trials and conviction | Criminal Court | View |
| N/A | Legal event (depositions) | Cosby testified in four depositions in Constand’s civil case without ever invoking his Fifth Amen... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Alleged assaults involving prior bad acts witnesses (in Cosby case) | Pennsylvania (implied) | View |
| N/A | Incident | Cosby provided pills to Constad and refused to identify them. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Civil case participation | N/A | View |
| N/A | Civil action | A civil action where Cosby was forced to testify under penalty of perjury, without Fifth Amendmen... | N/A | View |
| 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 | Communication/meeting attempt | Constad telephoned Cosby and secretly recorded the conversation, during which Cosby offered assis... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal action | Constad filed a police report accusing Cosby of sexual assault. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Sexual assault | Incident involving Cosby and Constad, which occurred in Cosby's home. | Cosby's home | View |
| N/A | Legal decision | D.A. Castor's decision not to prosecute Cosby. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Cosby sat for four depositions and incriminated himself, in reliance upon D.A. Castor's decision. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Investigation of Cosby and subsequent agreement not to prosecute to facilitate civil deposition. | Pennsylvania (implied by 'C... | View |
| N/A | Legal decision | D.A. Castor made an unconditional decision not to prosecute Cosby. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Deposition | Cosby sat for depositions in a civil action and was forced to testify. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal settlement | A civil action against Cosby was settled for a significant amount of money. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Prosecutorial decision | D.A. Castor announced his declination decision not to prosecute Cosby on behalf of the Commonwealth. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal testimony | Cosby was compelled to furnish self-incriminating testimony based on his reliance on the Commonwe... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal ruling | The Superior Court concluded that Cosby was not immune from prosecution because D.A. Castor faile... | Commonwealth | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Cosby's deposition testimony in Constand's civil suit, where he decided not to invoke the Fifth A... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Police investigation | An initial investigation during which Attorney Schmitt allowed Cosby to give a statement to the p... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Hearing | A habeas corpus hearing where the trial court viewed and heard witnesses and their testimonies re... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | D.A. Castor decides not to prosecute Cosby. | Pennsylvania (Implied by co... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Cosby providing drugs to women. | Unspecified | View |
DOJ-OGR-00000056.tif
This document discusses legal principles of contract interpretation in the context of plea agreements, citing several court cases. It argues that ordinary contract principles should apply to plea agreements, with a strong emphasis on fairness to the defendant and construing ambiguity against the government, and suggests that the cases of Annabi and Maxwell should be reversed based on these principles.
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-00004883.jpg
This document is Page 71 of 80 from a filing in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on July 2, 2021. The content is an excerpt from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court opinion overturning Bill Cosby's conviction ([J-100-2020]), discussing the legal principle of 'reasonable reliance' on a prosecutor's public promise not to prosecute. This precedent was likely submitted by Maxwell's defense to argue for the validity of the Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA).
DOJ-OGR-00004882.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, dated July 2, 2021, arguing that it is reasonable for a defendant, Cosby, to rely on the advice of his attorneys. The text cites the 1938 Supreme Court case Johnson v. Zerbst, quoting Justice Black's opinion on the constitutional necessity of counsel for defendants who lack the legal expertise to navigate the complexities of the criminal justice system. The argument centers on the idea that without professional legal guidance, a defendant cannot adequately defend themselves.
DOJ-OGR-00004881.jpg
This legal document, a court opinion, concludes that an individual named Cosby reasonably relied on a decision by former District Attorney Castor not to prosecute him. The court asserts that Castor intended for this reliance to occur, which led Cosby to incriminate himself in four depositions, thereby depriving him of his Fifth Amendment rights. The court maintains that the absence of a formal, written promise does not negate the violation of Cosby's due process rights, as his detrimental reliance is evident from the record.
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-00004879.jpg
This document is page 67 of a legal filing (Exhibit 310-1) from the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on July 2, 2021. The text itself contains a legal opinion analyzing the *Commonwealth v. Cosby* case, specifically discussing Bill Cosby's inability to invoke the Fifth Amendment during civil depositions after criminal charges were no longer pending. It details how Cosby was compelled to provide testimony regarding his history of supplying women with central nervous system depressants.
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-00004876.jpg
This document is Page 64 of 80 from an exhibit filed on July 2, 2021, in the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The content itself is an excerpt from a judicial opinion (likely the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling in Commonwealth v. Cosby) discussing District Attorney Bruce Castor's decision not to prosecute Bill Cosby. The text analyzes the specific wording of a press release issued by Castor, arguing that his statement about 'reconsidering this decision' referred to his decision not to speak publicly, rather than his decision not to prosecute. This document was likely submitted in the Maxwell case to argue legal precedents regarding non-prosecution agreements.
DOJ-OGR-00004874.jpg
This document is a page from a legal opinion (Commonwealth v. Cosby) filed as an exhibit in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It discusses the legal implications of a prosecutor's decision not to prosecute a suspect (Cosby) and whether such a decision binds future prosecutors. The text argues that prosecutors cannot induce a suspect to give up rights (like self-incrimination protections) by promising non-prosecution, only to reverse course later. This precedent was likely cited in the Maxwell case regarding the validity of the Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement.
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-00004863.jpg
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. It contains an excerpt from a judicial opinion regarding *Commonwealth v. Cosby*, specifically discussing former D.A. Bruce Castor's testimony and emails asserting his intent to permanently bind the Commonwealth from prosecuting Bill Cosby for a 2004 incident to remove his Fifth Amendment protections in civil court. This case law was likely cited in the Maxwell trial regarding the validity of non-prosecution agreements.
DOJ-OGR-00004862.jpg
This legal document page discusses a trial court's findings following a habeas corpus hearing concerning an alleged non-prosecution agreement between former District Attorney Castor and Cosby. The court determined that no formal promise was made, characterizing the interaction as a failed attempt to secure a statutory immunity agreement. The document also notes the court found Castor's testimony inconsistent and that Castor claimed his authority to grant immunity was based on common law, not statute.
DOJ-OGR-00004859.jpg
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.
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-00004852.jpg
This document is Page 40 of 80 from a legal filing (Exhibit) in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330), filed on July 2, 2021. The text is an excerpt from a legal opinion regarding *Commonwealth v. Cosby*, discussing the procedural history of Bill Cosby's appeal and the legal standards for admitting 'prior bad acts' evidence under Rule 404(b) and the 'common plan, scheme, or design' exception. It cites precedents *Commonwealth v. Miller* and *Commonwealth v. Tyson* to analyze how such evidence is used to establish identity or counter defenses of consent.
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-00004849.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on July 2, 2021. It appears to be quoting a legal opinion regarding the Bill Cosby case (specifically referencing case J-100-2020 and Commonwealth v. Hicks), discussing the admissibility of 'prior bad acts' evidence and the 'doctrine of chances' to prove lack of mistake or accident in sexual assault cases. The text analyzes Cosby's modus operandi involving intoxicants and mentions Andrea Constand and 19 other witnesses.
| Date | Type | From | To | Amount | Description | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Paid | Cosby | Unknown | $0.00 | Settled the case for a large sum of money. | View |
Discussion about sports broadcasting, education, meeting,...
Constad telephoned Cosby and secretly recorded the conversation, during which Cosby offered assistance for sports broadcasting, to pay for her education, and requested a meeting, while refusing to identify pills he had provided.
Discussion about sports broadcasting, education, meeting,...
Constad telephoned Cosby and secretly recorded the conversation, during which Cosby offered assistance for sports broadcasting, to pay for her education, and requested a meeting, while refusing to identify pills he had provided.
Testimony in civil action
Cosby provided four sworn depositions in a civil action, making several incriminating statements, under penalty of perjury, without Fifth Amendment privilege.
Testimony in civil action
Cosby provided four sworn depositions in a civil action, making several incriminating statements, under penalty of perjury, without Fifth Amendment privilege.
Renovations
Several telephone conversations concerning the renovations
Dessert invitation
Asked her to meet him for dessert in his [room]
Civil Litigation
Cosby sat for a civil deposition relying on overtures by Castor.
Pills
Stated he would write down name of pills.
Recorded conversations
Constand recorded telephone calls with Cosby.
Civil Case Testimony
Cosby was forced to sit for four depositions where he provided evidence regarding supplying women with depressants.
Criminal Investigation
Cosby voluntarily submitted to an interview providing a consent-based defense.
Response to concise statement of errors
Opinion issued pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a).
Dinner invitation
Dinner at a Philadelphia restaurant.
Temple University athletics
Discussion about issues involving Temple University athletics.
Career decision
Discussion regarding Constand leaving her job at Temple and returning to Canada.
Temple athletics and sports broadcasting
Discussions on customary topics in Cosby's room.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity