Opinion
No. 9 MAL 2020
06-23-2020
COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent v. William Henry COSBY Jr., Petitioner
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
AND NOW, this 23rd day of June, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, LIMITED TO the issues set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to all remaining issues. The issues, as stated by petitioner, are:
(1) Where allegations of uncharged misconduct involving sexual contact with five women (and a de facto sixth) and the use of Quaaludes were admitted at trial through the women's live testimony and Petitioner's civil deposition testimony despite: (a) being unduly remote in time in that the allegations were more than fifteen years old and, in some instances, dated back to the 1970s; (b) lacking any striking similarities or close factual nexus to the conduct for which Petitioner was on trial; (c) being unduly prejudicial; (d) being not actually probative of the crimes for which Petitioner was on trial; and (e) constituting nothing but improper propensity evidence, did the Panel err in affirming the admission of this evidence?
(2) Where: (a) the Montgomery County District Attorney ("MCDA") agreed that Petitioner would not be prosecuted in order to force Petitioner's testimony at a deposition in Complainant's civil action; (b) the MCDA's Office issued a formal public statement reflecting that agreement; and (c) Petitioner reasonably relied upon those oral and written statements by providing deposition testimony in the civil action, thus forfeiting his constitutional right against self-incrimination, did the Panel err in affirming the trial court's decision to allow not only the prosecution of Petitioner but the admission of Petitioner's civil deposition testimony?