mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00004892.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "80",
    "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 80 of 80\n\nCommonwealth v. DiPasquale, 246 A.2d 430, 432 (Pa. 1968)). The decision to charge, or not to charge, a defendant can be conditioned, modified, or revoked at the discretion of the prosecutor.\n\nHowever, the discretion vested in our Commonwealth's prosecutors, however vast, does not mean that its exercise is free of the constraints of due process. When an unconditional charging decision is made publicly and with the intent to induce action and reliance by the defendant, and when the defendant does so to his detriment (and in some instances upon the advice of counsel), denying the defendant the benefit of that decision is an affront to fundamental fairness, particularly when it results in a criminal prosecution that was foregone for more than a decade. No mere changing of the guard strips that circumstance of its inequity. See, e.g., State v. Myers, 513 S.E.2d 676, 682 n.1 (W.Va. 1998) (explaining that \"any change in the duly elected prosecutor does not affect the standard of responsibility for the office\"). A contrary result would be patently untenable.\n\nIt would violate long-cherished principles of fundamental fairness. It would be antithetical to, and corrosive of, the integrity and functionality of the criminal justice system that we strive to maintain.\n\nFor these reasons, Cosby's convictions and judgment of sentence are vacated, and he is discharged.35\n\nJustices Todd, Donohue and Mundy join the opinion.\n\nJustice Dougherty files a concurring and dissenting opinion in which Chief Justice Baer joins.\n\nJustice Saylor files a dissenting opinion.\n\n35 Accordingly, we do not address Cosby's other issue.\n\n[J-100-2020] - 79\n\nDOJ-OGR-00004892",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 80 of 80",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Commonwealth v. DiPasquale, 246 A.2d 430, 432 (Pa. 1968)). The decision to charge, or not to charge, a defendant can be conditioned, modified, or revoked at the discretion of the prosecutor.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "However, the discretion vested in our Commonwealth's prosecutors, however vast, does not mean that its exercise is free of the constraints of due process. When an unconditional charging decision is made publicly and with the intent to induce action and reliance by the defendant, and when the defendant does so to his detriment (and in some instances upon the advice of counsel), denying the defendant the benefit of that decision is an affront to fundamental fairness, particularly when it results in a criminal prosecution that was foregone for more than a decade. No mere changing of the guard strips that circumstance of its inequity. See, e.g., State v. Myers, 513 S.E.2d 676, 682 n.1 (W.Va. 1998) (explaining that \"any change in the duly elected prosecutor does not affect the standard of responsibility for the office\"). A contrary result would be patently untenable.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "It would violate long-cherished principles of fundamental fairness. It would be antithetical to, and corrosive of, the integrity and functionality of the criminal justice system that we strive to maintain.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "For these reasons, Cosby's convictions and judgment of sentence are vacated, and he is discharged.35",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Justices Todd, Donohue and Mundy join the opinion.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Justice Dougherty files a concurring and dissenting opinion in which Chief Justice Baer joins.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Justice Saylor files a dissenting opinion.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "35 Accordingly, we do not address Cosby's other issue.",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "[J-100-2020] - 79",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004892",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Cosby",
      "Todd",
      "Donohue",
      "Mundy",
      "Dougherty",
      "Baer",
      "Saylor",
      "DiPasquale",
      "Myers"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Commonwealth",
      "W.Va"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Pa",
      "W.Va"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "07/02/21",
      "1968",
      "1998"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "310-1",
      "J-100-2020",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004892"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court opinion with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}