{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "64",
    "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 64 of 80\n\n\"this decision\" is possible only when this sentence is read in isolation.25 The court ignored what came before and after, omitting all relevant and necessary context. The entire passage reads as follows:\n\nBecause a civil action with a much lower standard for proof is possible, the District Attorney renders no opinion concerning the credibility of any party involved so as to not contribute to the publicity and taint potential jurors. The District Attorney does not intend to expound publicly on the details of his decision for fear that his opinions and analysis might be given undue weight by jurors in any contemplated civil action. District Attorney Castor cautions all parties to this matter that he will reconsider this decision should the need arise. Much exists in this investigation that could be used (by others) to portray persons on both sides of the issue in a less than flattering light. The District Attorney encourages the parties to resolve their dispute from this point forward with a minimum of rhetoric.\n\nId. (emphasis added).\n\n25 There is no doubt that there are two decisions at issue: the decision not to prosecute and the decision not to discuss that choice in public. The dissent would endorse the trial court's selective interpretation of D.A. Castor's language in the press release, finding at a minimum that D.A. Castor's assertion that he would reconsider the \"decision\" is ambiguous. But a plain reading of the release belies such a construction. Like the trial court's interpretation of the relevant paragraph of the press release, the dissent's finding of ambiguity can result only when one overlooks the context and surrounding statements quite entirely. D.A. Castor stated that he did not intend to discuss the details of his decision not to prosecute. In the very next sentence, D.A. Castor stated that he would reconsider \"this decision\" if the need arose. In context, \"this decision\" must naturally refer to the decision not to discuss the matter with the public. This is so because announcing that particular decision was the very purpose of the immediately preceding statement, and the subject sentence naturally modifies that prior statement. D.A. Castor already had stated earlier in the press release that he had decided not to prosecute Cosby. Thus, when D.A. Castor referred to \"this decision\" in the particular paragraph under examination, he was referring not to a decision addressed much earlier in the press release but rather to the decision that he had stated for the first time in the immediately preceding sentence. Even more compelling is the fact that the entirety of the paragraph relates to D.A. Castor's concern about the potential effect that any public statements that he would make might have on jurors empaneled in a civil case. Nothing at all in that paragraph pertains to the decision not to prosecute Cosby. As noted, D.A. Castor already had addressed the non-prosecution decision. There is no support for the notion that D.A. Castor was referring to his decision not to prosecute Cosby in the middle of a paragraph directed exclusively to: (1) the potential impact that any public explication by D.A. Castor might have upon the fairness of a civil case; and (2) D.A. Castor's derivative decision not to discuss the matter publicly in order to avoid that potential impact.\n\n[J-100-2020] - 63\nDOJ-OGR-00004876",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 64 of 80",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "\"this decision\" is possible only when this sentence is read in isolation.25 The court ignored what came before and after, omitting all relevant and necessary context. The entire passage reads as follows:",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Because a civil action with a much lower standard for proof is possible, the District Attorney renders no opinion concerning the credibility of any party involved so as to not contribute to the publicity and taint potential jurors. The District Attorney does not intend to expound publicly on the details of his decision for fear that his opinions and analysis might be given undue weight by jurors in any contemplated civil action. District Attorney Castor cautions all parties to this matter that he will reconsider this decision should the need arise. Much exists in this investigation that could be used (by others) to portray persons on both sides of the issue in a less than flattering light. The District Attorney encourages the parties to resolve their dispute from this point forward with a minimum of rhetoric.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Id. (emphasis added).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "25 There is no doubt that there are two decisions at issue: the decision not to prosecute and the decision not to discuss that choice in public. The dissent would endorse the trial court's selective interpretation of D.A. Castor's language in the press release, finding at a minimum that D.A. Castor's assertion that he would reconsider the \"decision\" is ambiguous. But a plain reading of the release belies such a construction. Like the trial court's interpretation of the relevant paragraph of the press release, the dissent's finding of ambiguity can result only when one overlooks the context and surrounding statements quite entirely. D.A. Castor stated that he did not intend to discuss the details of his decision not to prosecute. In the very next sentence, D.A. Castor stated that he would reconsider \"this decision\" if the need arose. In context, \"this decision\" must naturally refer to the decision not to discuss the matter with the public. This is so because announcing that particular decision was the very purpose of the immediately preceding statement, and the subject sentence naturally modifies that prior statement. D.A. Castor already had stated earlier in the press release that he had decided not to prosecute Cosby. Thus, when D.A. Castor referred to \"this decision\" in the particular paragraph under examination, he was referring not to a decision addressed much earlier in the press release but rather to the decision that he had stated for the first time in the immediately preceding sentence. Even more compelling is the fact that the entirety of the paragraph relates to D.A. Castor's concern about the potential effect that any public statements that he would make might have on jurors empaneled in a civil case. Nothing at all in that paragraph pertains to the decision not to prosecute Cosby. As noted, D.A. Castor already had addressed the non-prosecution decision. There is no support for the notion that D.A. Castor was referring to his decision not to prosecute Cosby in the middle of a paragraph directed exclusively to: (1) the potential impact that any public explication by D.A. Castor might have upon the fairness of a civil case; and (2) D.A. Castor's derivative decision not to discuss the matter publicly in order to avoid that potential impact.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "[J-100-2020] - 63",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004876",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Castor",
      "Cosby"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "District Attorney"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "07/02/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "310-1",
      "J-100-2020",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004876"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a case involving Cosby. The text discusses the decision not to prosecute and the potential impact on a civil case. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
}