mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00004860.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "48",
    "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 48 of 80\n\nII. Issues:\n\nOn June 23, 2020, this Court granted Cosby's petition for allowance of appeal, limited to the following two issues:\n\n(1) Where allegations of uncharged misconduct involving sexual contact with five women (and a de facto sixth) and the use of Quaaludes were admitted at trial through the women's live testimony and [Cosby's] civil deposition testimony despite: (a) being unduly remote in time in that the allegations were more than fifteen years old and, in some instances, dated back to the 1970s; (b) lacking any striking similarities or close factual nexus to the conduct for which [Cosby] was on trial; (c) being unduly prejudicial; (d) being not actually probative of the crimes for which [Cosby] was on trial; and (e) constituting nothing but improper propensity evidence, did the Panel err in affirming the admission of this evidence?\n\n(2) Where: (a) [District Attorney Castor] agreed that [Cosby] would not be prosecuted in order to force [Cosby's] testimony at a deposition in [Constand's] civil action; (b) [the district attorney] issued a formal public statement reflecting that agreement; and (c) [Cosby] reasonably relied upon those oral and written statements by providing deposition testimony in the civil action, thus forfeiting his constitutional right against self-incrimination, did the Panel err in affirming the trial court's decision to allow not only the prosecution of [Cosby] but the admission of [Cosby's] civil deposition testimony?\n\nCommonwealth v. Cosby, 236 A.3d 1045 (Pa. 2020) (per curiam).20\n\nIII. Analysis\n\nWe begin with Cosby's second listed issue, because, if he is correct that the Commonwealth was precluded from prosecuting him, then the question of whether the prior bad act testimony satisfied Rule 404(b) will become moot.\n\nOn February 17, 2005, then-District Attorney Castor announced to the public, on behalf of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, that he would not prosecute Cosby for any offense related to the 2004 sexual abuse that Constand alleged. Constand's potential\n\n20 In his petition, Cosby also sought this Court's review of his claim of improper juror bias and his challenge to the constitutionality of SORNA. We denied allocatur as to those two claims.\n\n[J-100-2020] - 47\n\nDOJ-OGR-00004860",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 48 of 80",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "II. Issues:\n\nOn June 23, 2020, this Court granted Cosby's petition for allowance of appeal, limited to the following two issues:\n\n(1) Where allegations of uncharged misconduct involving sexual contact with five women (and a de facto sixth) and the use of Quaaludes were admitted at trial through the women's live testimony and [Cosby's] civil deposition testimony despite: (a) being unduly remote in time in that the allegations were more than fifteen years old and, in some instances, dated back to the 1970s; (b) lacking any striking similarities or close factual nexus to the conduct for which [Cosby] was on trial; (c) being unduly prejudicial; (d) being not actually probative of the crimes for which [Cosby] was on trial; and (e) constituting nothing but improper propensity evidence, did the Panel err in affirming the admission of this evidence?\n\n(2) Where: (a) [District Attorney Castor] agreed that [Cosby] would not be prosecuted in order to force [Cosby's] testimony at a deposition in [Constand's] civil action; (b) [the district attorney] issued a formal public statement reflecting that agreement; and (c) [Cosby] reasonably relied upon those oral and written statements by providing deposition testimony in the civil action, thus forfeiting his constitutional right against self-incrimination, did the Panel err in affirming the trial court's decision to allow not only the prosecution of [Cosby] but the admission of [Cosby's] civil deposition testimony?",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Commonwealth v. Cosby, 236 A.3d 1045 (Pa. 2020) (per curiam).20",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "III. Analysis\n\nWe begin with Cosby's second listed issue, because, if he is correct that the Commonwealth was precluded from prosecuting him, then the question of whether the prior bad act testimony satisfied Rule 404(b) will become moot.\n\nOn February 17, 2005, then-District Attorney Castor announced to the public, on behalf of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, that he would not prosecute Cosby for any offense related to the 2004 sexual abuse that Constand alleged. Constand's potential",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "20 In his petition, Cosby also sought this Court's review of his claim of improper juror bias and his challenge to the constitutionality of SORNA. We denied allocatur as to those two claims.",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "[J-100-2020] - 47\n\nDOJ-OGR-00004860",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Cosby",
      "Castor",
      "Constand"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Commonwealth of Pennsylvania"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Pennsylvania"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "June 23, 2020",
      "February 17, 2005",
      "2004",
      "1970s"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "310-1",
      "236 A.3d 1045",
      "J-100-2020",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004860"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Commonwealth v. Cosby. The text is printed and legible, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document includes citations to legal cases and references to specific court rules."
}