Superior Court of California, Riverside Cty.
OrganizationRelationship Network
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Legal ruling | The Superior Court concluded that Cosby was not immune from prosecution because D.A. Castor faile... | Commonwealth | View |
DOJ-OGR-00001521.jpg
This legal document, filed on July 6, 2020, is a court order concerning the initial appearance and removal hearing for defendant Ghislaine Maxwell. The court justifies holding the hearing via video, citing COVID-19 related standing orders, and finds that this method constitutes a partial, rather than total, closure of proceedings. The court concludes that public and press access is maintained, satisfying the constitutional rights of the defendant and the public.
DOJ-OGR-00019224.jpg
This legal document, filed on July 2, 2020, is a court order concerning the initial appearance and removal hearing for defendant Ghislaine Maxwell. The court details its decision to hold the hearing via video, justifying it as a partial, rather than total, closure of proceedings. It references its own Standing Orders related to the COVID-19 outbreak and cites legal precedents to affirm that it has considered the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights and the public's First Amendment rights to access.
DOJ-OGR-00019194.jpg
This document is a court order from July 2, 2020, concerning the initial appearance and removal hearing for defendant Ghislaine Maxwell. The court justifies its decision to hold the hearing via video, considering the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights and the public's First Amendment rights to access. It concludes that a video hearing constitutes a partial, rather than total, closure of proceedings, ensuring public access is maintained.
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-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-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-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-00005271.jpg
This legal document, filed by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, argues against a defendant's request to seal the juror questionnaire and voir dire process from the public. Citing multiple legal precedents, the filing asserts that there is a strong presumption of openness and the defense has failed to meet the 'heavy burden' of proof required to justify such secrecy. The document urges the court to deny the defendant's request and order the materials to be filed on the public docket.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016487.jpg
This document is page 'iii' of a Table of Authorities from a legal brief, stamped by the House Oversight Committee. It lists legal citations including Supreme Court cases on press freedom, New York Civil Rights statutes, and two news articles: one from 2008 regarding Jeffrey Epstein pleading guilty to prostitution charges, and one from 2017 regarding the Manhattan DA's failure to prosecute the Trumps or Harvey Weinstein.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015011.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a larger submission to the House Oversight Committee (marked HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015011). It contains allegations against John and Avery Gunther regarding a cover-up for IBM and abuse of their children, alongside complaints about the NSF and the 'Deep State.' The second half of the document is a letter to the Washington Post criticizing Kenneth Starr for his representation of Blackwater and Jeffrey Epstein, while questioning the focus of the original Starr Report.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity