DOJ-OGR-00004889.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 77 of 80 Our disagreement with the CDO arises concerning its view that mere suppression of Cosby’s deposition testimony will remedy his constitutional harm and “fully” restore him to where he stood before he detrimentally relied upon D.A. Castor’s inducement.*! This perspective understates the gravity of Cosby’s harm in this case, and suppression alone is insufficient to provide a full remedy of the consequences of the due process violation. The CDO would limit our assessment of the harm suffered by Cosby to the Commonwealth's use of the deposition testimony at his two trials. But the harm is far greater than that, and it began long before even the first trial. It must be remembered that D.A. Castor’s decision not to prosecute Cosby, and to announce that decision orally and in a written press release, was not designed to facilitate the use of testimony against Cosby in a future criminal trial. Instead, D.A. Castor induced Cosby’s forfeiture of his Fifth Amendment rights as a mechanism and a lever to aid Constand’s civil action and to improve the chances that she would receive at least a monetary benefit for the abuse that she suffered, given that D.A. Castor had determined that Constand would not, and could not, get relief in a criminal trial. Through his deliberate efforts, D.A. Castor effectively forced Cosby to participate against himself in a civil case in a way that Cosby would not have been required to do had he retained his constitutional privilege against self- incrimination. To say the least, this development significantly weakened Cosby’s legal position. Cosby was compelled to give inculpatory evidence that led ultimately to a multi- million dollar settlement. The end result was exactly what D.A. Castor intended: Cosby gave up his rights, and Constand received significant financial relief. Under these circumstances, where our equitable objective in remedying a due process violation is to restore an aggrieved party to the status he held prior to that violation, exclusion of the deposition testimony from a third criminal trial, and nothing a Id. at 5. [J-100-2020] - 76 DOJ-OGR-00004889