D.A. Castor
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Cosby
|
Legal representative |
11
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
Cosby
|
Prosecutor defendant initial decision |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Cosby
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Cosby
|
Prosecutor defendant |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
D.A. Ferman
|
Professional successor |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Legal decision | D.A. Castor's decision not to prosecute Cosby. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal decision | D.A. Castor made an unconditional decision not to prosecute Cosby. | 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 | Hearing | A habeas corpus hearing where the trial court viewed and heard witnesses and their testimonies re... | N/A | View |
| 2025-12-01 | N/A | D.A. Castor made a public decision not to prosecute Cosby to induce a waiver of rights. | Montgomery County | View |
| 2005-02-17 | N/A | D.A. Castor issues press release declining to file criminal charges against Cosby. | Pennsylvania (Implied) | View |
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-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-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-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-00004841.jpg
This document is a page from a legal opinion (likely the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision in Commonwealth v. Cosby) filed as an exhibit in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It discusses the legal insufficiency of a 'press release' issued by D.A. Castor to grant immunity to Bill Cosby without court permission. The text cites Pennsylvania statutes regarding witness immunity and highlights the inconsistency of Castor's testimony regarding his intent.
DOJ-OGR-00004832.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, dated July 2, 2021, detailing the history of Bill Cosby's case. It reproduces a trial court's summary of testimony from a 2016 habeas corpus hearing, focusing on former District Attorney Bruce L. Castor, Jr.'s 2005 decision-making process. The text recounts Castor's testimony about his investigation into Andrea Constand's allegations, including his rationale for assigning specific detectives and his assessment of the case's weaknesses, such as the delayed reporting and inconsistencies in statements.
DOJ-OGR-00004831.jpg
This document is a filing from the United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on July 2, 2021. The text specifically discusses the legal history of *Commonwealth v. Cosby*, detailing how a former District Attorney (Castor) issued a non-prosecution declaration to force Bill Cosby to testify in a civil suit without Fifth Amendment protection. It describes how subsequent District Attorneys (Ferman and Steele) reopened the case and charged Cosby, leading to a habeas corpus petition based on the alleged non-prosecution agreement—a legal precedent likely being cited by Maxwell's defense regarding her own non-prosecution agreement.
DOJ-OGR-00004826.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a legal filing in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), specifically citing the Pennsylvania Supreme Court opinion ([J-100-2020]) regarding Bill Cosby. It details the history of D.A. Bruce Castor's verbal non-prosecution decision in 2005, noting that because Cosby believed he had immunity, he did not invoke his Fifth Amendment rights during civil depositions. This legal precedent regarding non-prosecution agreements (NPAs) was likely used by the defense or prosecution in the Maxwell/Epstein case to argue the validity or scope of Epstein's own non-prosecution agreement.
DOJ-OGR-00004815.jpg
This legal document details the procedural history of a case involving Mr. Cosby, focusing on a District Attorney's initial decision to decline criminal prosecution in exchange for Cosby's testimony in a civil action. It explains how Cosby's subsequent incriminating statements were later used against him by the D.A.'s successors in a criminal trial, leading to an allowance of appeal regarding the enforceability of the original agreement. The document also provides background on Constad, the alleged victim, and his connection to Cosby through employment at Temple University.
D.A. Castor's decision regarding prosecution and public c...
D.A. Castor's press release, which the document argues was intended to induce Cosby's reliance, leading to due process implications.
D.A. Castor's decision regarding prosecution and public c...
D.A. Castor's press release, which the document argues was intended to induce Cosby's reliance, leading to due process implications.
Decision not to prosecute Cosby
D.A. Castor publicly announced his decision not to prosecute Cosby, which the document states was made knowing it would induce Cosby to testify in another matter.
Unknown
Suggested intent in signing off on press release was to assure Cosby regarding civil deposition testimony usage; stated 'a prosecution is not precluded.'
Non-prosecution
Castor 'signed off' on this to assure Cosby regarding testimony usage.
Non-prosecution
Proclamation that Cosby would not be prosecuted.
Non-prosecution declaration
A written declaration that there would be no prosecution based on anything Cosby said in the civil action.
Charging Decision
Public announcement of the Commonwealth’s charging decision.
Charging Decision
Press release regarding prosecution status.
Declination to prosecute Bill Cosby
Stated there was insufficient evidence to sustain charges beyond a reasonable doubt.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity