{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "18",
    "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 18 of 80\n\nbelieve any state judge would allow that deposition into evidence, nor anything derived therefrom. In fact, that was the specific intent of all parties involved including the Commonwealth and the plaintiff's lawyers. Knowing this, unless you can make out a case without that deposition and without anything the deposition led you to, I think Cosby would have an action against the Country and maybe even against you personally. That is why I have publically suggested looking for lies in the deposition as an alternative now that we have learned of all these other victims we did not know about at the time we had made the go, no-go decision on arresting Cosby. I publically suggested that the DA in California might try a common plan scheme or design case using [Constand's] case as part of the res gestae in their case. Because I knew Montgomery County could not prosecute Cosby for a sexual offense, if the deposition was needed to do so. But I thought the DA in California might have a shot because I would not have the power to bind another state's prosecutor.\n\nSome of this, of course, is my opinion and using Cosby's deposition in the CA case, might be a stretch, but one thing is fact: the Commonwealth, defense, and civil plaintiff's lawyers were all in the agreement that the attached decision from me stripped Cosby of this Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, forcing him to be deposed. That led to Cosby paying [Constand] a lot of money, a large percentage of which went to her lawyers on a contingent fee basis. In my opinion, those facts will render Cosby's deposition inadmissible in any prosecution in Montgomery County for the incident that occurred in January 2004 in Cheltenham Township.\n\nBruce\n\nN.T., 2/2/2016, Exh. D-5.\n\nReplying by letter, D.A. Ferman asserted that, despite the public press release, this was the first she had learned about a binding understanding between the Commonwealth and Cosby. She requested a copy of any written agreement not to prosecute Cosby. D.A. Castor replied with the following email:\n\nThe attached Press Release is the written determination that we would not prosecute Cosby. That was what the lawyers for [Constand] wanted and I agreed. The reason I agreed and the plaintiff's lawyers wanted it in writing is so that Cosby could not take the 5th Amendment to avoid being deposed or testifying. A sound strategy to employ. That meant to all involved, including Cosby's lawyer at the time, Mr. Phillips, that what Cosby said in the civil litigation could not be used against him in a criminal prosecution for the event we had him under investigation for in early 2005. I signed the press release for precisely this reason, at the request of [Constand's] counsel, and with the acquiescence of Cosby's counsel, with full and\n\n[J-100-2020] - 17\n\nDOJ-OGR-00004830",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 18 of 80",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "believe any state judge would allow that deposition into evidence, nor anything derived therefrom. In fact, that was the specific intent of all parties involved including the Commonwealth and the plaintiff's lawyers. Knowing this, unless you can make out a case without that deposition and without anything the deposition led you to, I think Cosby would have an action against the Country and maybe even against you personally. That is why I have publically suggested looking for lies in the deposition as an alternative now that we have learned of all these other victims we did not know about at the time we had made the go, no-go decision on arresting Cosby. I publically suggested that the DA in California might try a common plan scheme or design case using [Constand's] case as part of the res gestae in their case. Because I knew Montgomery County could not prosecute Cosby for a sexual offense, if the deposition was needed to do so. But I thought the DA in California might have a shot because I would not have the power to bind another state's prosecutor.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Some of this, of course, is my opinion and using Cosby's deposition in the CA case, might be a stretch, but one thing is fact: the Commonwealth, defense, and civil plaintiff's lawyers were all in the agreement that the attached decision from me stripped Cosby of this Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, forcing him to be deposed. That led to Cosby paying [Constand] a lot of money, a large percentage of which went to her lawyers on a contingent fee basis. In my opinion, those facts will render Cosby's deposition inadmissible in any prosecution in Montgomery County for the incident that occurred in January 2004 in Cheltenham Township.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Bruce",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "N.T., 2/2/2016, Exh. D-5.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Replying by letter, D.A. Ferman asserted that, despite the public press release, this was the first she had learned about a binding understanding between the Commonwealth and Cosby. She requested a copy of any written agreement not to prosecute Cosby. D.A. Castor replied with the following email:",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The attached Press Release is the written determination that we would not prosecute Cosby. That was what the lawyers for [Constand] wanted and I agreed. The reason I agreed and the plaintiff's lawyers wanted it in writing is so that Cosby could not take the 5th Amendment to avoid being deposed or testifying. A sound strategy to employ. That meant to all involved, including Cosby's lawyer at the time, Mr. Phillips, that what Cosby said in the civil litigation could not be used against him in a criminal prosecution for the event we had him under investigation for in early 2005. I signed the press release for precisely this reason, at the request of [Constand's] counsel, and with the acquiescence of Cosby's counsel, with full and",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "[J-100-2020] - 17",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004830",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Cosby",
      "Constand",
      "Bruce",
      "Ferman",
      "Castor",
      "Phillips"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Commonwealth",
      "DA"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "California",
      "Montgomery County",
      "Cheltenham Township"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "07/02/21",
      "2/2/2016",
      "January 2004",
      "2005"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "310-1",
      "J-100-2020",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004830"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case against Bill Cosby. It discusses the admissibility of Cosby's deposition in a potential criminal prosecution and references a press release and email correspondence between district attorneys."
}