Bruce Castor
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Cosby
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Bill Cosby
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
organization
District Attorney
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Cosby
|
Prosecutor subject |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Risa Vetri Ferman
|
Business associate |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Bill Cosby
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ferman
|
Professional successor |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Eric Schmitt
|
Professional informational |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Constand
|
Prosecutor complainant |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Bill Cosby
|
Prosecutor subject |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ferman
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Cosby
|
Prosecutor suspect |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
William Cosby
|
Investigator subject |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Risa Vetri Ferman
|
Professional |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Habeas Hearing | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Trial court denied motion regarding non-prosecution agreement. | Pennsylvania Trial Court | View |
| N/A | Legal decision | District Attorney Bruce Castor determined that there was insufficient credible and admissible evi... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Investigation of Cosby. | Montgomery County | View |
| N/A | N/A | D.A. Castor decides not to prosecute Cosby. | Pennsylvania (Implied by co... | View |
| 2016-02-02 | N/A | Testimony (N.T.) given by former D.A. Castor | Court | View |
| 2016-02-02 | N/A | Testimony/Notes of Testimony (N.T.) cited in the document. | Court | View |
| 2016-02-02 | Testimony | Former District Attorney Castor testified at the habeas hearing. | N/A | View |
| 2016-02-02 | N/A | Notes of Testimony (N.T.) recorded regarding the Castor/Cosby interaction. | Court | View |
| 2015-09-23 | N/A | Bruce Castor sends email to D.A. Ferman explaining the 2005 non-prosecution agreement. | n/a | View |
| 2005-02-17 | N/A | District Attorney Castor announced he would not prosecute Cosby. | Pennsylvania | View |
| 2005-02-17 | N/A | Press release and decision by Bruce Castor not to prosecute Bill Cosby criminally. | Montgomery County, PA | View |
| 2005-02-01 | N/A | D.A. Castor reviewed interviews and written answers to assess prosecution viability. | District Attorney's Office | View |
| 2005-01-01 | N/A | District Attorney Castor publicly announced a decision not to prosecute Cosby. | Pennsylvania (implied by co... | View |
| 2005-01-01 | N/A | Bruce Castor learns of and investigates Constand's claim | Montgomery County | View |
EFTA00010414.pdf
This document is a legal letter from Ghislaine Maxwell's defense counsel to Judge Alison Nathan, dated July 2, 2021. The defense cites a recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision overturning Bill Cosby's conviction due to a violation of a non-prosecution promise, arguing that this precedent supports dismissing charges against Maxwell based on the Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The letter contends that the government is violating due process by reneging on the specific immunity granted to Maxwell in the NPA.
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-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-00004861.jpg
This document is Page 49 of a larger filing (Document 310-1) in the case USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The text is an excerpt from a legal opinion (likely the Pennsylvania Supreme Court opinion in Commonwealth v. Cosby) discussing the legal effect of D.A. Bruce Castor's 2005 decision not to prosecute Bill Cosby. It serves as legal precedent regarding non-prosecution agreements (NPAs) and whether a prosecutor's promise not to charge a defendant is binding and prevents future prosecution. This case law was cited in the Maxwell trial because Maxwell's defense argued that Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement in Florida should shield her from federal prosecution.
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-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-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-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-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.
DOJ-OGR-00004830.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a legal filing in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), specifically referencing the Pennsylvania Supreme Court opinion regarding Bill Cosby ([J-100-2020]). It details former D.A. Bruce Castor's explanation to D.A. Ferman regarding his 2005 decision not to prosecute Cosby; Castor explains this was a strategic move to strip Cosby of his 5th Amendment protections, thereby forcing him to testify in a civil suit filed by Andrea Constand. This document was likely filed by Maxwell's defense to establish legal precedent regarding the binding nature of Non-Prosecution Agreements (NPAs).
DOJ-OGR-00004829.jpg
This document is a page from a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) that references the Bill Cosby case as legal precedent regarding non-prosecution agreements. It contains an email from former D.A. Bruce Castor to D.A. Risa Ferman dated September 23, 2015. In the email, Castor explains that in 2005 he intentionally promised not to prosecute Cosby criminally to strip him of Fifth Amendment protections, thereby forcing him to testify in a civil deposition for the benefit of the victim, Andrea Constand.
DOJ-OGR-00004828.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed 07/02/21) discussing the legal history of the Bill Cosby case, likely cited as precedent in the Ghislaine Maxwell/Epstein proceedings regarding non-prosecution agreements. It details Cosby's admission to using Quaaludes for sex, his $3.38 million settlement with Andrea Constand, and the reopening of the criminal investigation by D.A. Risa Vetri Ferman after civil records were unsealed in 2015. It also notes a $20,000 payment to Constand from American Media, Inc.
DOJ-OGR-00004822.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing in United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), specifically citing the Commonwealth v. Cosby case regarding District Attorney Bruce Castor's 2005 decision not to prosecute Bill Cosby. The text details Castor's reasoning, citing Andrea Constand's delay in reporting, inconsistencies in her statements, lack of forensic evidence found at the Cheltenham residence, and her continued contact with Cosby after the alleged assault. It notes that the pills provided by Cosby were confirmed to be Benadryl.
DOJ-OGR-00004814.jpg
This document is a page from a Pennsylvania Supreme Court opinion (Commonwealth v. Cosby) written by Justice Wecht, decided on June 30, 2021. While the text concerns the prosecution of Bill Cosby and District Attorney Bruce Castor's 2005 decision not to prosecute due to lack of evidence, the header indicates this document was filed as an exhibit (Document 310-1) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, which is the federal criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The Cosby case was likely cited in the Maxwell proceedings as a legal precedent regarding the validity of non-prosecution agreements.
DOJ-OGR-00004810.jpg
This legal letter, dated July 2, 2021, from Cohen & Gresser LLP to Judge Alison J. Nathan, cites the recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision vacating William Henry Cosby Jr.'s conviction. The letter argues that this precedent supports Ghislaine Maxwell's supplemental motion to dismiss charges, as the government allegedly failed to honor a non-prosecution agreement, similar to the District Attorney's office in the Cosby case. It details the circumstances of the Cosby case, including Andrea Constand's allegations and the initial decision by DA Bruce Castor not to prosecute due to insufficient evidence.
Unknown
Castor explains that the Press Release was the written determination not to prosecute, intended to strip Cosby of 5th Amendment privileges for the civil deposition.
Inquiry about binding understanding
Ferman asserted this was the first she learned of a binding understanding and requested a copy of the written agreement.
Agreement with Cosby
Testified there was no agreement or quid pro quo.
Testimony regarding non-prosecution
Testified regarding intent to preclude prosecution to strip Cosby of Fifth Amendment rights.
Non-prosecution logic
Reasoning regarding prosecution of other cases if evidence existed, provided Constand deposition wasn't used.
First email regarding binding decision
Stated he 'intentionally and specifically bound the Commonwealth that there would be no state prosecution.'
Second email regarding press release
Stated that by signing off on the press release, the Commonwealth would not bring a case against Cosby based on available evidence.
Decision to decline prosecution
Reporter informed Ms. Troiani that Castor issued a press release declining prosecution.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity