{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "46",
    "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 46 of 80\n\nNational Enquirer on the details of its published interview with Cosby, and that Attorney Schmitt negotiated a term of the settlement agreement with Constand that required her assurance that she would not cooperate with any future criminal investigation. Thus, the Commonwealth argued, and the Superior Court agreed, that \"[i]t was not necessary for the trial court to specifically state that it rejected . . . Schmitt's testimony, as it is patently obvious that his testimony belies his claim that there was some 'promise' from [Mr.] Castor not to prosecute.\" Id. (quoting Commonwealth's Superior Court Brief at 136-37). The Superior Court agreed that \"the evidence was entirely inconsistent with [Cosby's] alleged reliance on Mr. Castor's promise in choosing not to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege in the civil suit.\" Id. at 413-14.\n\nFor the same reasons, the Superior Court rejected Cosby's claim that the trial court erred in failing to suppress his deposition testimony due to the immunity that he purportedly should have enjoyed. The court opined that Cosby's suppression argument was \"contingent upon his claim that Mr. Castor unilaterally immunized [Cosby] from criminal prosecution, which we have already rejected.\" Id. at 414. The panel distinguished all of the precedents upon which Cosby relied, including this Court's decision in Commonwealth v. Stipetich, 652 A.2d 1294 (Pa. 1995).\n\nIn Stipetich, Pittsburgh police personnel had promised George and Heidi Stipetich that, if they answered questions about the source of the drugs found in their home, no charges would be filed against them. After the Stipetiches fulfilled their part of the agreement, prosecutors charged them anyway. Id. at 1294-95. The trial court granted the Stipetiches' motion to dismiss the charges on the basis of the police promise. Id. at 1295. This Court ultimately held that the Pittsburgh police department had no authority to bind the Allegheny County District Attorney's Office to a non-prosecution agreement. Id. However, this Court opined:\n\n[J-100-2020] - 45\nDOJ-OGR-00004858",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 46 of 80",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "National Enquirer on the details of its published interview with Cosby, and that Attorney Schmitt negotiated a term of the settlement agreement with Constand that required her assurance that she would not cooperate with any future criminal investigation. Thus, the Commonwealth argued, and the Superior Court agreed, that \"[i]t was not necessary for the trial court to specifically state that it rejected . . . Schmitt's testimony, as it is patently obvious that his testimony belies his claim that there was some 'promise' from [Mr.] Castor not to prosecute.\" Id. (quoting Commonwealth's Superior Court Brief at 136-37). The Superior Court agreed that \"the evidence was entirely inconsistent with [Cosby's] alleged reliance on Mr. Castor's promise in choosing not to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege in the civil suit.\" Id. at 413-14.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "For the same reasons, the Superior Court rejected Cosby's claim that the trial court erred in failing to suppress his deposition testimony due to the immunity that he purportedly should have enjoyed. The court opined that Cosby's suppression argument was \"contingent upon his claim that Mr. Castor unilaterally immunized [Cosby] from criminal prosecution, which we have already rejected.\" Id. at 414. The panel distinguished all of the precedents upon which Cosby relied, including this Court's decision in Commonwealth v. Stipetich, 652 A.2d 1294 (Pa. 1995).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In Stipetich, Pittsburgh police personnel had promised George and Heidi Stipetich that, if they answered questions about the source of the drugs found in their home, no charges would be filed against them. After the Stipetiches fulfilled their part of the agreement, prosecutors charged them anyway. Id. at 1294-95. The trial court granted the Stipetiches' motion to dismiss the charges on the basis of the police promise. Id. at 1295. This Court ultimately held that the Pittsburgh police department had no authority to bind the Allegheny County District Attorney's Office to a non-prosecution agreement. Id. However, this Court opined:",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "[J-100-2020] - 45",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004858",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Cosby",
      "Schmitt",
      "Constand",
      "Castor",
      "George Stipetich",
      "Heidi Stipetich"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "National Enquirer",
      "Commonwealth",
      "Superior Court",
      "Pittsburgh police department",
      "Allegheny County District Attorney's Office"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Pittsburgh",
      "Pennsylvania"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "07/02/21",
      "1995"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "310-1",
      "652 A.2d 1294",
      "J-100-2020",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004858"
    ]
  },
  "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 46 of 80."
}