Last July, when the lack of prosecution of Cosby became a campaign issue, Castor said he would sue Cosby if he could prove that Cosby had given false testimony by testifying, and he encouraged prosecutors in other jurisdictions to consider the same. This wish seems more than a little strange – usually, when an accused breaks an agreement with a prosecutor, para. B example by granting him immunity and then giving him false testimony, all this is a failure, and the prosecutor returns directly to the court to pursue the initial charges. Credibility issues and the lack of direct or corroborating evidence to support their claim led the district attorney to believe that the case constituted “insufficient, credible and admissible evidence” on which an indictment could be upheld beyond a reasonable doubt. Press release of 17.02.2005 (adjusted). Given his “conclusion that a conviction would be unattainable in the circumstances of this case,” said D.A. Castor, “refuses to authorize the laying of criminal charges related to this case.” Given the decision not to prosecute, Cosby was no longer liable to criminal liability in connection with Constand`s allegations and could therefore no longer invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against mandatory self-incrimination in this regard. As there was no legal mechanism available to avoid testifying in Constand`s civil suit, Cosby sat down to testify and made a number of statements that incriminated themselves. however, his successor decided to revive the investigation and prosecute Cosby. The trial court ruled on Cosby`s challenge to the late indictment, finding that the former district attorney`s promise did not constitute a binding and enforceable agreement. To determine whether Cosby was permanently protected from prosecution by D.A.
Castor`s 2005 declination decision, we must first determine the legal relationship between D.A. Castor and Cosby. We will begin with the findings of the Court of First Instance. Commonwealth, 778 A.2d 1194, 1199 (Pa. 2001). The courts of appeal are limited to determining “whether there is evidence in the file to justify the findings of the court of first instance”. Id. at 1199 n.6. “If that`s the case, this court is bound by them.” While “we respect a court of first instance with respect to findings of fact, our review of legal findings is de novo.” Id.
at n.7 (citation omitted). In fact, it is a long-standing appeal principle that “[t]he inferences and inferences of the facts and conclusions of D.A. Castor`s declination decision remain stable during his tenure. If it is a law of horns, the review tribunals are not fact-finding bodies. O`Rourke v. [J-100-2020] – 48 Thus, it is at best “an open question” as to whether a defendant who has a “binding written agreement” can apply it against the district attorney. Cosby doesn`t even have that. He says he has a verbal promise that the prosecutor would not exercise his discretion to lay charges. This is less than what the accused in the Roby-Spencer case had.
Sexual assault lawyers and lawyers were surprised by the immunity agreement. In a scathing dissent, Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice Kevin Dougherty said district attorneys did not have the power “to impose on their successors — forever no less — the kind of general no-prosecution agreement that Castor Cosby tried to convey.” Fairness required the execution of the prosecution`s plea, which was later withdrawn, with the defendant relying negatively on the offer); Commonwealth v. McSorley, 485 A.2d 15, 20 (Pa. Super. 1984), aff`d, 506 A.2d 895 (Pa. 1986) (per curiam) (execution of an incomplete agreement due to unfavourable dependency). As noted earlier, the principle of fundamental fairness, as enshrined in our constitutions, requires the courts to consider whether the “impugned conduct violates a principle of justice so deeply rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people that it is classified as fundamental and that defines the sense of fair play and decency of the community.” Kratsas, 764 A.2d to 27. Cosby`s prosecution for the Constand incident is the only way that meets society`s reasonable expectations of its chosen prosecutors and our criminal justice system. It should be recalled that D.A. Castor intended to issue his decision to indict him to derogate from Cosby`s basic constitutional law, which is why the prosecutor made his decision very public.
Cosby reasonably relied on this decades-old decision to his detriment when he refused to exercise his privilege against mandatory self-incrimination and when he made incriminating statements to Constand`s civil lawyers. Under these circumstances, neither our principles of justice, nor the expectations of society, nor our sense of fair play and decency can tolerate anything other than forcing the Montgomery County District Attorney`s Office to stick to the decision of its former elected leader. Enforcement Agreement. In this case, Stipetich agreed with police that if he revealed his source for obtaining drugs, no charges would be laid against him or his wife. Stipetich, 652 A.2d to 1294-95. Although Stipetich fulfilled his part of the deal, charges were nevertheless brought against him and his wife. Id. at 1295.
The Stipetiches, in our view, requested specific enforcement of D.A.`s decision. Castor in the form of an exclusion in Stipetich, we briefly considered a remedy for the violation of a defective nonconformity [J-100-2020] – 73 Based on the agreement with Castor, Cosby testified in the civil suit, but was later sued by Castor`s successor with a judge, which allowed some of Cosby`s testimony to be used in his criminal trial. In the Roby-Spencer case, a notary was charged with forgery and theft. The District Attorney and the defendant entered into a written agreement in which they agreed to renounce their notary license, cease their notary activities, deposit funds into an escrow account for reimbursement, and waive their constitutional right to a preliminary hearing. In return, the District Attorney agreed to recommend that the defendant be included in the Accelerated Rehabilitation Disposition (ARD) program. Light. The district attorney encourages the parties to settle their dispute from that point on with minimal rhetoric. Press release, 17.02.2005; N.T., 02.02.2016, extract D-4. to permanently refrain from prosecuting Cosby. In fact, Constand only learned of the decision in the evening, when a reporter appeared later that evening at one of his civil lawyers. After the resolution of his allegations was withdrawn by the criminal courts, Constand turned to the civil sphere. The 8.
In March 2015, less than a month after the District Attorney`s press release, Constand filed a lawsuit against Cosby in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.6 In the civil case, John Schmitt had learned of the decision not to prosecute Cosby`s defense attorney, 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. As a result, Cosby did not invoke or even mention the Fifth Amendment once during the four testimonies. During his testimony, attorney Schmitt advised Cosby not to answer certain questions about Constand, but he did not explicitly invoke the Fifth Amendment.7 Nor did Cosby claim Fifth Amendment protection when asked about other alleged victims of his sexual abuse, likely because he believed he no longer retained that privilege. In fact, no one involved in either party to the civil suit indicated in the minutes that Cosby could be sued in the future. D.A. Castor`s decision was not contained in written terms, nor reduced to writing. 6 See Constand v. Cosby, file no. 2:05-cv-01099-ER.
7 Constand`s lawyers then filed a motion to force Cosby to respond. D.A. Castor did not communicate his decision to Constand or his lawyer Upon discovery in this lawsuit, Cosby sat for four statements. Cosby`s lawyer [J-100-2020] – 13 Cosby`s confession in the testimony was used as evidence against him during his 2018 criminal trial. But Castor`s promise 13 years earlier that the star would never have to be prosecuted was at the heart of the Supreme Court`s decision this week to overturn the decision. Receive information in the discovery or lawyers [of Cosby] who suggest that [Cosby] could never be prosecuted. Ms. Troiani testified that she understood the press release to mean that Mr. Castor was not continuing at the time, but that if additional information appeared, he would change his mind. She did not take the wording “District Attorney Castor warns all parties in this case that he will reconsider this decision if necessary” as a threat not to speak publicly.
She continued to speak to the press; Mr. Castor did not take revenge. Ms. Troiani was present at [Cosby`s] testimony. At no point during the testimony was there any mention of an agreement or a promise not to be pursued. In their experience, such a promise would have been recorded in civil declarations. She testified that [Cosby] did not cooperate during the four days of testimony and that the statements were highly controversial. Ms. Troiani had to file motions to force [Cosby`s] answers. [Cosbys] The refusal to answer questions relating to Ms. Constand`s allegations served as the basis for a request for coercion. When Ms.
Troiani tried to question [Cosby] about the allegations, [Cosby`s] lawyers tried to have her statement read to the police in the transcript instead of cross-examination. Ms. Troiani testified that one of [Cosby`s] original provisions in the civil settlement was an exemption from criminal liability. .