Thread by @TheViewFromLL2

Wow.

After Castor's successor reopened the Cosby case, Castor informed her he made an agreement not to prosecute Cosby, but that he'd made the deal WITH COSBY'S ATTORNEY ONLY, and never even informed the victim of the deal he made – even though the deal was allegedly for her benefit!

In short, DA Castor made an agreement with Cosby's lawyer to announce that Cosby would not be prosecuted; the victim was never consulted about this "agreement"; and this is the only time in Castor's career as DA that he made a public declaration there'd be no prosecution.

And in his press release announcing his decision not to prosecute Cosby, DA Castor went out of his way to attack the victim's credibility, concluding that: "Much exists in this investigation that could be used to portray PERSONS ON BOTH SIDES in a less than flattering light."

In Castor's emails urging his successor not to reopen the case, he repeatedly claims the agreement not to prosecute Cosby was made at the victim's request: "That was what the lawyers for the plaintiff wanted and I agreed."

Castor was lying. The victim had no idea about the deal.

Attorneys for the victim testified that Castor's decision to grant Cosby immunity for the sexual assault charges had not been done at their request, and was not beneficial to their trial strategy.

In fact, they were entirely unaware that immunity had even been granted to Cosby.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court did not disturb the trial court's factual findings that Castor's testimony was shifty and changing, and that he was never able to give a clear explanation about why he'd done what he did in the Cosby case.

But the PA Supreme Court concluded – and I think convincingly – that *why* Castor did what he did doesn't matter.

Castor represented to Cosby that he had been granted immunity, and if Cosby relied on that representation, the State is bound by it.

But what I'm struggling to understand is the Court's conclusion that Cosby *did* rely on Castor's representations of immunity.

In the civil suit, Cosby sought immunity from criminal liability as part of the settlement – which would indicate he did not believe he had it already.

The Court found Cosby's decision to confess to "supplying women with central nervous system depressants before engaging in (allegedly unwanted) sexual activity with them" can "compel only one conclusion": that Cosby believed he had immunity and the Fifth Amendment did not apply.

But Cosby was accused of sexual assault by so, so many women. The victim in the civil case was only one of many who'd come forward over the years.

Cosby had no basis whatsoever for believing himself to be immune from criminal liability for any and all rapes he'd ever committed.

Castor's announcement of immunity in the Constand case could in no way mean Cosby had immunity–and therefore no protection under the Fifth–for any and all other crimes he'd committed.

Cosby could have still invoked the Fifth before testifying about other cases. He chose not to.

The portions of Cosby's deposition testimony used at his trial had to do with Cosby's admissions to drugging women with Quaaludes before having "sexual encounters" with them.

This testimony was evidence of criminal conduct that Cosby had no immunity for.

But the Pennsylvania Supreme Court made a factual finding – based on an assumption and without any citations to the record to back it up – that "obviously" Cosby would never have incriminated himself like this unless he believed himself to be immune.

Cosby was freely interviewed by the police without invoking the Fifth. He never attempted to invoke the Fifth during his civil depos. There's no evidence on the record I can see that Cosby's attorney ever advised him that he *couldn't* plead the Fifth in these depos.

In fact, Cosby's attorney never had any opinion about whether Castor's immunity might've somehow made the Fifth unavailable to Cosby for these other crimes.

The PA Supreme Court concluded Cosby incriminated himself in reliance on advice from counsel that Cosby was never given.

Perhaps that's why, in the end, the PA Supreme Court pivots away from the Fifth, and concludes that it doesn't matter whether the deposition evidence was used at trial – the *real* harm to Cosby was that he was made a promise he'd never be prosecuted, and that promise was broken.

That's the part of the PA decision I can't wrap my head around. Castor's press release was sketchy as hell, it never should have happened.

But the PA Court found that once a DA has publicly announced "I will not charge this defendant," it can never be taken back.

And that brings us to Justice Dougherty's separate opinion – joined by the Chief Justice – that notes there's a problem much bigger than Cosby that has been created here. The majority's opinion implicitly endorses Castor's belief that he had the power to grant immunity at a whim.

If DAs have this power, Dougherty argues, it opens the gates to all kinds of abuses. Such as defendants paying off DAs to give them immunity.

And then Dougherty goes one step further: it's reasonable to consider, he says, if that might be exactly what happened here with Castor.

The takes about how the Cosby decision was about a "deal" between Cosby & the DA are deeply misleading – but understandable, because that's the same inaccurate language the majority's opinion uses.

But the only "deal" that could exist here is a bribe.

Even Castor was clear no "agreement" with Cosby existed. There couldn't be an agreement – an agreement requires a bargained-for exchange. Each sides gives something.

But Castor's announcement that he wouldn't charge Cosby was not an exchange. It was a unilateral announcement.

Castor did try to falsely portray his decision not to charge Cosby as *a deal he made with the victim.* But that's not what happened either – the victim had no knowledge about what Castor planned, hadn't asked him to do that, and didn't want him to.