mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00004826.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "14",
    "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 14 of 80\n\nlight. The District Attorney encourages the parties to resolve their dispute from this point forward with a minimum of rhetoric.\n\nPress Release, 2/17/2005; N.T., 2/2/2016, Exh. D-4.\n\nD.A. Castor did not communicate to Constand or her counsel his decision to permanently forego prosecuting Cosby. In fact, Constand did not learn of the decision until a reporter appeared at one of her civil attorney's offices later that evening. With the resolution of her allegations removed from the criminal courts, Constand turned to the civil realm. On March 8, 2015, less than one month after the district attorney's press release, Constand filed a lawsuit against Cosby in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.6\n\nDuring discovery in that lawsuit, Cosby sat for four depositions. Cosby's attorney for the civil proceedings, John Schmitt, had learned about the non-prosecution decision from Cosby's criminal counsel, Walter Phillips. From the perspective of Cosby's attorneys, the district attorney's decision legally deprived Cosby of any right or ability to invoke the Fifth Amendment. Accordingly, not once during the four depositions did Cosby invoke the Fifth Amendment or even mention it. During one deposition, Attorney Schmitt advised Cosby not to answer certain questions pertaining to Constand, but he did not specifically invoke the Fifth Amendment.7 Nor did Cosby claim the protections of the Fifth Amendment when asked about other alleged victims of his sexual abuse, presumably because he believed that he no longer retained that privilege. In fact, no one involved with either side of the civil suit indicated on the record a belief that Cosby could be prosecuted in the future. D.A. Castor's decision was not included in any written stipulations, nor was it reduced to writing.\n\n6 See Constand v. Cosby, Docket No. 2:05-cv-01099-ER.\n7 Constand's attorneys subsequently filed a motion to compel Cosby to answer.\n\n[J-100-2020] - 13\n\nDOJ-OGR-00004826",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 14 of 80",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "light. The District Attorney encourages the parties to resolve their dispute from this point forward with a minimum of rhetoric.\n\nPress Release, 2/17/2005; N.T., 2/2/2016, Exh. D-4.\n\nD.A. Castor did not communicate to Constand or her counsel his decision to permanently forego prosecuting Cosby. In fact, Constand did not learn of the decision until a reporter appeared at one of her civil attorney's offices later that evening. With the resolution of her allegations removed from the criminal courts, Constand turned to the civil realm. On March 8, 2015, less than one month after the district attorney's press release, Constand filed a lawsuit against Cosby in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.6\n\nDuring discovery in that lawsuit, Cosby sat for four depositions. Cosby's attorney for the civil proceedings, John Schmitt, had learned about the non-prosecution decision from Cosby's criminal counsel, Walter Phillips. From the perspective of Cosby's attorneys, the district attorney's decision legally deprived Cosby of any right or ability to invoke the Fifth Amendment. Accordingly, not once during the four depositions did Cosby invoke the Fifth Amendment or even mention it. During one deposition, Attorney Schmitt advised Cosby not to answer certain questions pertaining to Constand, but he did not specifically invoke the Fifth Amendment.7 Nor did Cosby claim the protections of the Fifth Amendment when asked about other alleged victims of his sexual abuse, presumably because he believed that he no longer retained that privilege. In fact, no one involved with either side of the civil suit indicated on the record a belief that Cosby could be prosecuted in the future. D.A. Castor's decision was not included in any written stipulations, nor was it reduced to writing.",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "6 See Constand v. Cosby, Docket No. 2:05-cv-01099-ER.\n7 Constand's attorneys subsequently filed a motion to compel Cosby to answer.",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "[J-100-2020] - 13",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004826",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Castor",
      "Constand",
      "Cosby",
      "John Schmitt",
      "Walter Phillips"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Pennsylvania"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "2/17/2005",
      "2/2/2016",
      "March 8, 2015",
      "07/02/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "310-1",
      "2:05-cv-01099-ER",
      "J-100-2020",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004826"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case against Bill Cosby. It discusses the decision not to prosecute Cosby and its implications for subsequent civil proceedings."
}