DOJ-OGR-00004886.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 74 of 80 fairness required enforcement of the prosecution’s plea offer that was later withdrawn, where the defendant detrimentally relied upon the offer); Commonwealth v. McSorley, 485 A.2d 15, 20 (Pa. Super. 1984), aff'd, 506 A.2d 895 (Pa. 1986) (per curiam) (enforcing an incomplete agreement based upon detrimental reliance). As noted earlier, the principle of fundamental fairness, as embodied in our Constitutions, requires courts to examine whether the challenged “conduct offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental and that defines the community's sense of fair play and decency.” Kratsas, 764 A.2d at 27. In our view, specific performance of D.A. Castor’s decision, in the form of barring Cosby’s prosecution for the incident involving Constand, is the only remedy that comports with society’s reasonable expectations of its elected prosecutors and our criminal justice system. It bears repeating that D.A. Castor intended his charging decision to induce the waiver of Cosby’s fundamental constitutional right, which is why the prosecutor rendered his decision in a very public manner. Cosby reasonably relied to his detriment upon that decade-old decision when he declined to attempt to avail himself of his privilege against compulsory self-incrimination and when he provided Constand’s civil attorneys with inculpatory statements. Under these circumstances, neither our principles of justice, nor society’s expectations, nor our sense of fair play and decency, can tolerate anything short of compelling the Montgomery County District Attorney’s Office to stand by the decision of its former elected head. In Stipetich, we briefly contemplated a remedy for the breach of a defective non- prosecution agreement. In that case, Stipetich agreed with the police that, if he revealed his source for obtaining drugs, no charges would be filed against him or his wife. Stipetich, 652 A.2d at 1294-95. Even though Stipetich fulfilled his end of the bargain, charges still were filed against him and his wife. /d. at 1295. The Stipetiches sought [J-100-2020] - 73 DOJ-OGR-00004886