IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MIDDLE DISTRICT
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,
Respondent

v.

WILLIAM HENRY COSBY JR.,
Petitioner

: No. 9 MAL 2020
:
:
: Petition for Allowance of Appeal
: from the Order of the Superior Court
:
:
:
:
:
:

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?