{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "2",
    "document_number": "310",
    "date": "July 2, 2021",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nJuly 2, 2021\nPage 2\nafter the assault; and (v) Ms. Constand had contacted civil attorneys to pursue financial compensation through a lawsuit against Mr. Cosby. (Id. at 9-10).\n\nDA Castor issued a signed public statement declining to prosecute Mr. Cosby, which he viewed as, and Mr. Cosby's lawyers understood to be, an agreement that Mr. Cosby would never be prosecuted for the events involving Ms. Constand. (Id. at 10-13, 16-18). Believing that he no longer had a basis to assert his Fifth Amendment rights, Mr. Cosby testified at several depositions in a civil suit brought against him by Ms. Constand and made inculpatory admissions. (Id. at 13-15). Ten years later, the successor District Attorney, Risa Vetri Ferman, used those admissions to charge Mr. Cosby with the same crimes related to the sexual assault of Ms. Constand that were covered by DA Castor's promise. (Id. at 18). Mr. Cosby was convicted of those charges at trial. (Id. at 38).\n\nThe Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that DA Castor's promise was enforceable and that DA Ferman's prosecution of Mr. Cosby ten years later on the same charges violated his Due Process rights. (Id. at 78-79). As a result, the Court vacated Mr. Cosby's conviction. (Id. at 79). In so holding, the Court noted the following:\n\nInteractions between a prosecutor and a criminal defendant, including circumstances where the latter seeks enforcement of some promise or assurance made by the former, are not immune from the dictates of due process and fundamental fairness.\n\n(Id. at 55).\n\nThe same principle applies to Ms. Maxwell's case. As in Cosby, the government is trying to renege on its agreement and prosecute Ms. Maxwell over 25 years later for the exact same offenses for which she was granted immunity in the NPA. Indeed, the principle applies even more strongly in Ms. Maxwell's case because the NPA was a formal written agreement, as opposed to an informal promise like the one in Cosby. This is not consistent with principles of fundamental fairness.\n\nAccordingly, for the reasons already set forth in our supplemental pretrial motions, and the principles discussed in Cosby, the Court should hold the government to its agreement and dismiss Counts One, Three, Five, and Six of the S2 Indictment.\n\nDOJ-OGR-00004811",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nJuly 2, 2021\nPage 2",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "after the assault; and (v) Ms. Constand had contacted civil attorneys to pursue financial compensation through a lawsuit against Mr. Cosby. (Id. at 9-10).\n\nDA Castor issued a signed public statement declining to prosecute Mr. Cosby, which he viewed as, and Mr. Cosby's lawyers understood to be, an agreement that Mr. Cosby would never be prosecuted for the events involving Ms. Constand. (Id. at 10-13, 16-18). Believing that he no longer had a basis to assert his Fifth Amendment rights, Mr. Cosby testified at several depositions in a civil suit brought against him by Ms. Constand and made inculpatory admissions. (Id. at 13-15). Ten years later, the successor District Attorney, Risa Vetri Ferman, used those admissions to charge Mr. Cosby with the same crimes related to the sexual assault of Ms. Constand that were covered by DA Castor's promise. (Id. at 18). Mr. Cosby was convicted of those charges at trial. (Id. at 38).\n\nThe Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that DA Castor's promise was enforceable and that DA Ferman's prosecution of Mr. Cosby ten years later on the same charges violated his Due Process rights. (Id. at 78-79). As a result, the Court vacated Mr. Cosby's conviction. (Id. at 79). In so holding, the Court noted the following:\n\nInteractions between a prosecutor and a criminal defendant, including circumstances where the latter seeks enforcement of some promise or assurance made by the former, are not immune from the dictates of due process and fundamental fairness.\n\n(Id. at 55).\n\nThe same principle applies to Ms. Maxwell's case. As in Cosby, the government is trying to renege on its agreement and prosecute Ms. Maxwell over 25 years later for the exact same offenses for which she was granted immunity in the NPA. Indeed, the principle applies even more strongly in Ms. Maxwell's case because the NPA was a formal written agreement, as opposed to an informal promise like the one in Cosby. This is not consistent with principles of fundamental fairness.\n\nAccordingly, for the reasons already set forth in our supplemental pretrial motions, and the principles discussed in Cosby, the Court should hold the government to its agreement and dismiss Counts One, Three, Five, and Six of the S2 Indictment.",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004811",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Alison J. Nathan",
      "Mr. Cosby",
      "Ms. Constand",
      "DA Castor",
      "Risa Vetri Ferman",
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Pennsylvania Supreme Court",
      "District Attorney"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "July 2, 2021"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 310",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004811"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ms. Maxwell, discussing the implications of a previous case involving Mr. Cosby. The text is printed and legible, with no visible handwriting or stamps."
}