{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "3",
    "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 3 of 80\nevidence upon which any charge against Mr. Cosby related to the Constand incident could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.\"1\n\nSeeking \"some measure of justice\" for Constand, D.A. Castor decided that the Commonwealth would decline to prosecute Cosby for the incident involving Constand, thereby allowing Cosby to be forced to testify in a subsequent civil action, under penalty of perjury, without the benefit of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.2\n\nUnable to invoke any right not to testify in the civil proceedings, Cosby relied upon the district attorney's declination and proceeded to provide four sworn depositions. During those depositions, Cosby made several incriminating statements.\n\nD.A. Castor's successors did not feel bound by his decision, and decided to prosecute Cosby notwithstanding that prior undertaking. The fruits of Cosby's reliance upon D.A. Castor's decision—Cosby's sworn inculpatory testimony—were then used by D.A. Castor's successors against Cosby at Cosby's criminal trial. We granted allowance of appeal to determine whether D.A. Castor's decision not to prosecute Cosby in exchange for his testimony must be enforced against the Commonwealth.3\n\nI. Factual and Procedural History\n\nIn the fall of 2002, Constand, a Canadian-born former professional basketball player, was employed as the Director of Basketball Operations at Temple University. It was in this capacity that Constand first met Cosby, who had close ties to, and was heavily\n\n1 Notes of Testimony (\"N.T.\"), Habeas Corpus Hearing, 2/2/2016, at 60.\n2 Id. at 63.\n3 As we discuss in more detail below, at Cosby's trial, the trial court permitted the Commonwealth to call five witnesses who testified that Cosby had engaged in similar sexually abusive patterns with each of them. We granted allowance of appeal here as well to consider the admissibility of that prior bad act evidence pursuant to Pa.R.E. 404(b). However, because our decision on the Castor declination issue disposes of this appeal, we do not address the Rule 404(b) claim.\n\n[J-100-2020] - 2\nDOJ-OGR-00004815",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 3 of 80",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "evidence upon which any charge against Mr. Cosby related to the Constand incident could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.\"1\n\nSeeking \"some measure of justice\" for Constand, D.A. Castor decided that the Commonwealth would decline to prosecute Cosby for the incident involving Constand, thereby allowing Cosby to be forced to testify in a subsequent civil action, under penalty of perjury, without the benefit of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.2\n\nUnable to invoke any right not to testify in the civil proceedings, Cosby relied upon the district attorney's declination and proceeded to provide four sworn depositions. During those depositions, Cosby made several incriminating statements.\n\nD.A. Castor's successors did not feel bound by his decision, and decided to prosecute Cosby notwithstanding that prior undertaking. The fruits of Cosby's reliance upon D.A. Castor's decision—Cosby's sworn inculpatory testimony—were then used by D.A. Castor's successors against Cosby at Cosby's criminal trial. We granted allowance of appeal to determine whether D.A. Castor's decision not to prosecute Cosby in exchange for his testimony must be enforced against the Commonwealth.3",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "I. Factual and Procedural History\n\nIn the fall of 2002, Constand, a Canadian-born former professional basketball player, was employed as the Director of Basketball Operations at Temple University. It was in this capacity that Constand first met Cosby, who had close ties to, and was heavily",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 Notes of Testimony (\"N.T.\"), Habeas Corpus Hearing, 2/2/2016, at 60.\n2 Id. at 63.\n3 As we discuss in more detail below, at Cosby's trial, the trial court permitted the Commonwealth to call five witnesses who testified that Cosby had engaged in similar sexually abusive patterns with each of them. We granted allowance of appeal here as well to consider the admissibility of that prior bad act evidence pursuant to Pa.R.E. 404(b). However, because our decision on the Castor declination issue disposes of this appeal, we do not address the Rule 404(b) claim.",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "[J-100-2020] - 2\nDOJ-OGR-00004815",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Cosby",
      "Constand",
      "Castor"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Commonwealth",
      "Temple University"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Canada"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "07/02/21",
      "2/2/2016",
      "2002"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "310-1",
      "J-100-2020",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004815"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case against Bill Cosby, with detailed information about the legal proceedings and the individuals involved."
}