{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "30",
    "document_number": "310-1",
    "date": "07/02/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 30 of 80\n\nAs further support for the view that no agreement was reached, nor any promise extended, the trial court noted that, in his initial statement to police, which was voluntarily provided and not under oath, Cosby did not invoke his Fifth Amendment rights. Instead, Cosby presented a narrative of a consensual sexual encounter with Constand, which he asserted again later in his depositions. \"Thus,\" the trial court explained, \"there was nothing to indicate that [Cosby's] cooperation would cease if a civil case were filed.\" Id. at 65. Since Cosby previously had discussed the incident without invoking his right to remain silent, the court found no reason to believe that Cosby subsequently would do so in a civil case so as to necessitate the remedy that the former district attorney purported to provide in anticipation of that litigation.\n\nThe trial court further held that, even if there was a purported grant of immunity, Cosby could not insist upon its enforcement based upon the contractual theory of promissory estoppel, because \"any reliance on a press release as a grant of immunity was unreasonable.\" Id. Specifically, the court noted that Cosby was represented at all times by a competent team of attorneys, but none of them \"obtained [D.A.] Castor's promise in writing or memorialized it in any way.\" Id. at 65-66. The failure to demand written documentation was evidence that no promise not to prosecute was ever extended.\n\nFor these reasons, the trial court found no legal basis to estop the Commonwealth from prosecuting Cosby.\n\nCosby filed a notice of appeal and a petition for review with the Superior Court. In response to the filings, the Superior Court temporarily stayed the proceedings below. However, upon a motion by the Commonwealth, the Superior Court quashed the appeal and lifted the stay. This Court likewise rejected Cosby's pre-trial efforts to appeal the adverse rulings, denying his petition for allowance of appeal, his petition for review, and his emergency petition for a stay of the proceedings.\n\n[J-100-2020] - 29\nDOJ-OGR-00004842",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 30 of 80",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "As further support for the view that no agreement was reached, nor any promise extended, the trial court noted that, in his initial statement to police, which was voluntarily provided and not under oath, Cosby did not invoke his Fifth Amendment rights. Instead, Cosby presented a narrative of a consensual sexual encounter with Constand, which he asserted again later in his depositions. \"Thus,\" the trial court explained, \"there was nothing to indicate that [Cosby's] cooperation would cease if a civil case were filed.\" Id. at 65. Since Cosby previously had discussed the incident without invoking his right to remain silent, the court found no reason to believe that Cosby subsequently would do so in a civil case so as to necessitate the remedy that the former district attorney purported to provide in anticipation of that litigation.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The trial court further held that, even if there was a purported grant of immunity, Cosby could not insist upon its enforcement based upon the contractual theory of promissory estoppel, because \"any reliance on a press release as a grant of immunity was unreasonable.\" Id. Specifically, the court noted that Cosby was represented at all times by a competent team of attorneys, but none of them \"obtained [D.A.] Castor's promise in writing or memorialized it in any way.\" Id. at 65-66. The failure to demand written documentation was evidence that no promise not to prosecute was ever extended.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "For these reasons, the trial court found no legal basis to estop the Commonwealth from prosecuting Cosby.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Cosby filed a notice of appeal and a petition for review with the Superior Court. In response to the filings, the Superior Court temporarily stayed the proceedings below. However, upon a motion by the Commonwealth, the Superior Court quashed the appeal and lifted the stay. This Court likewise rejected Cosby's pre-trial efforts to appeal the adverse rulings, denying his petition for allowance of appeal, his petition for review, and his emergency petition for a stay of the proceedings.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "[J-100-2020] - 29",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004842",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Cosby",
      "Constand",
      "Castor"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Superior Court",
      "Commonwealth"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "07/02/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "310-1",
      "J-100-2020",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004842"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case against Bill Cosby. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 30 of 80."
}