DOJ-OGR-00004834.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 22 of 80

the atmosphere or the legal conditions such that Mr. Cosby would never be
allowed to assert the Fifth Amendment in the civil case.” He testified that
she did not come back to him with any objection from Ms. Constand’s
attorneys and that any objection from Ms. Constand’s attorneys would not
have mattered anyway. He later testified that he did not have any specific
recollection of discussing his legal analysis with Ms. Ferman, but would be
surprised if he did not.

Mr. Castor testified that he could not recall any other case where he made
this type of binding legal analysis in Montgomery County. He testified that
in a half dozen cases during his tenure in the District Attorney’s office,
someone would attempt to assert the Fifth Amendment in a preexisting civil
case. The judge in that case would then call Mr. Castor to determine if he
intended to prosecute the person asserting the privilege. He could confirm
that he did not and the claim of privilege would be denied. Mr. Castor was
unable to name a case in which this happened.

After making his decision not to prosecute, Mr. Castor personally issued a
second, signed press release on February 17, 2005. Mr. Castor testified
that he signed the press release at the request of Ms. Constand’s attorneys
in order to bind the Commonwealth so it “would be evidence that they could
show to a civil judge that Cosby is not getting prosecuted.” The press
release stated, “After reviewing the above and consulting with County and
Cheltenham Detectives, the District Attorney finds insufficient, credible and
admissible evidence exists upon which any charge against Mr. Cosby could
be sustained beyond a reasonable doubt.” Mr. Castor testified that this
language made it absolute that [Cosby] would never be prosecuted, “[s]o I
used the present tense, [exists], . . . So I’m making it absolute. I said I
found that there was no evidence—there was insufficient credible and
admissible evidence in existence upon which any charge against [Cosby]
could be sustained. And the use of ‘exists’ and ‘could’ I meant to be
absolute.”

The press release specifically cautioned the parties that the decision could
be revisited, “District Attorney Castor cautions all parties to this matter that
he will reconsider this decision should the need arise.” He testified that
inclusion of this sentence, warning that the decision could be revisited, in
the paragraph about a civil case and the use of the word “this,” was intended
to make clear that it applied to the civil case and not to the prosecution. Mr.
Castor testified that this sentence was meant to advise the parties that if
they criticized his decision, he would contact the media and explain that Ms.
Constand’s actions damaged her credibility, which would severely hamper
her civil case. He testified that once he was certain a prosecution was not
viable “I operated under the certainty that a civil suit was coming and set up
the dominoes to fall in such a way that Mr. Cosby would be required to
testify.” He included the language “much exists in this investigation that
could be used by others to portray persons on both sides of the issue in a

[J-100-2020] - 21

DOJ-OGR-00004834