{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "79",
    "document_number": "310-1",
    "date": "07/02/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "constitutional right, was compelled to participate in a civil case after losing that right, testified against his own interests, weakened his position there and ultimately settled the case for a large sum of money, was tried twice in criminal court, was convicted, and has served several years in prison. All of this started with D.A. Castor's compulsion of Cosby's reliance upon a public proclamation that Cosby would not be prosecuted. The CDO's remedy for all of this would include subjecting Cosby to a third criminal trial. That is no remedy at all. Rather, it is an approach that would place Cosby nowhere near where he was before the due process violation took root.\n\nThere is only one remedy that can completely restore Cosby to the status quo ante. He must be discharged, and any future prosecution on these particular charges must be barred. We do not dispute that this remedy is both severe and rare. But it is warranted here, indeed compelled. The CDO would shun this remedy because (at least in part) it might thwart the \"public interest in having the guilty brought to book.\"34 It cannot be gainsaid that society holds a strong interest in the prosecution of crimes. It is also true that no such interest, however important, ever can eclipse society's interest in ensuring that the constitutional rights of the people are vindicated. Society's interest in prosecution does not displace the remedy due to constitutionally aggrieved persons.\n\nIV. Conclusion\n\nWe do not question the discretion that is vested in prosecutors \"over whether charges should be brought in any given case.\" Stipetich, 652 A.2d at 1295. We will not undermine a prosecutor's \"general and widely recognized power to conduct criminal litigation and prosecutions on behalf of the Commonwealth, and to decide whether and when to prosecute, and whether and when to continue or discontinue a case.\" Id. (quoting 34 See CDO (quoting Blue, 384 U.S. at 255).\n[J-100-2020] - 78 DOJ-OGR-00004891",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "constitutional right, was compelled to participate in a civil case after losing that right, testified against his own interests, weakened his position there and ultimately settled the case for a large sum of money, was tried twice in criminal court, was convicted, and has served several years in prison. All of this started with D.A. Castor's compulsion of Cosby's reliance upon a public proclamation that Cosby would not be prosecuted. The CDO's remedy for all of this would include subjecting Cosby to a third criminal trial. That is no remedy at all. Rather, it is an approach that would place Cosby nowhere near where he was before the due process violation took root.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "There is only one remedy that can completely restore Cosby to the status quo ante. He must be discharged, and any future prosecution on these particular charges must be barred. We do not dispute that this remedy is both severe and rare. But it is warranted here, indeed compelled. The CDO would shun this remedy because (at least in part) it might thwart the \"public interest in having the guilty brought to book.\"34 It cannot be gainsaid that society holds a strong interest in the prosecution of crimes. It is also true that no such interest, however important, ever can eclipse society's interest in ensuring that the constitutional rights of the people are vindicated. Society's interest in prosecution does not displace the remedy due to constitutionally aggrieved persons.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "IV. Conclusion",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "We do not question the discretion that is vested in prosecutors \"over whether charges should be brought in any given case.\" Stipetich, 652 A.2d at 1295. We will not undermine a prosecutor's \"general and widely recognized power to conduct criminal litigation and prosecutions on behalf of the Commonwealth, and to decide whether and when to prosecute, and whether and when to continue or discontinue a case.\" Id. (quoting 34 See CDO (quoting Blue, 384 U.S. at 255).",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "[J-100-2020] - 78 DOJ-OGR-00004891",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Cosby",
      "Castor"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "CDO",
      "Commonwealth"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "07/02/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 310-1",
      "652 A.2d at 1295",
      "384 U.S. at 255",
      "J-100-2020",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004891"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Bill Cosby. The text discusses the due process violation and the appropriate remedy. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
}