DOJ-OGR-00004890.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 78 of 80 more, falls short of what our law demands. Though this appeal emanates from Cosby’s criminal convictions, we cannot ignore the true breadth of the due process violation. The deprivation includes the fact that D.A. Castors actions handicapped Cosby in the derivative civil suit. Nor can we ignore the fact that weakening Cosby’s position in that civil case was precisely why D.A. Castor proceeded as he did. Suppression of evidence in a third criminal trial can never restore Cosby to the position he held before he forfeited his Fifth Amendment rights. The consequences of D.A. Castor’s actions include the civil matter, and no exclusion of deposition testimony can restore Cosby’s injuries in that regard. It was not only the deposition testimony that harmed Cosby. As a practical matter, the moment that Cosby was charged criminally, he was harmed: all that he had forfeited earlier, and the consequences of that forfeiture in the civil case, were for naught. This was, as the CDO itself characterizes it, an unconstitutional “coercive bait-and-switch.”°2 It is the true and full breadth of the consequences of the due process violation that separates this case from the cases relied upon by the CDO, including Stipetich.2° Each of those prosecutions involved defective or unenforceable promises that resulted in suppression remedies. Critically, none of them featured the additional harm inflicted in this case. In none of those cases did the effects of the constitutional violation extend to matters beyond the criminal trial, as was the circumstance here. Accordingly, none of those cases support, much less compel, the limited remedy that the CDO proffers. The impact of the due process violation here is vast. The remedy must match that impact. Starting with D.A. Castors inducement, Cosby gave up a fundamental ak Id. at 1. a See CDO at 6-8 (citing Stipetich, Commonwealth v. Peters, 373 A.2d 1055 (Pa. 1977); Commonwealth v. Parker, 611 A.2d 199 (Pa. 1922); People v. Gallego, 424 N.W.2d 470 (Mich. 1988); and United States v. Blue, 384 U.S. 251 (1966)). [J-100-2020] - 77 DOJ-OGR-00004890