252 A.3d 1092
Pa.2021Background
- In Feb. 2005 Montgomery County D.A. Bruce Castor publicly announced he would not prosecute Bill Cosby for Andrea Constand’s January 2004 sexual-assault allegation, citing weak evidence and intending to remove Cosby’s ability to invoke the Fifth Amendment in a civil suit.
- Relying on that declination, Cosby gave four sworn civil depositions without asserting the Fifth Amendment and made inculpatory statements; Constand later settled the civil case for $3.38 million.
- Years later, Castor’s successors reopened the criminal investigation; Cosby was indicted, tried twice (first resulted in a mistrial), convicted at the second trial based in part on his civil deposition and testimony from other alleged prior victims, and sentenced to prison.
- Cosby challenged prosecution and use of his deposition on promissory-estoppel/due-process grounds, arguing Castor’s public declination amounted to an enforceable, binding promise not to prosecute that induced him to waive his Fifth Amendment rights.
- Trial and Superior Courts rejected Cosby’s claims (finding no enforceable agreement and that any prosecutor promise could be revoked absent a court immunity order under 42 Pa.C.S. § 5947), and upheld admission of prior-bad-act evidence under Rule 404(b).
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that when a prosecutor makes an unconditional public promise of non-prosecution intended to induce a defendant to forfeit the Fifth Amendment and the defendant reasonably and detrimentally relies on it, due process requires enforcement; the Court vacated Cosby’s convictions and discharged him.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Cosby) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether D.A. Castor’s 2005 public declination created an enforceable bar to later prosecution | Castor’s unconditional public declination was intended to and did induce Cosby to forfeit his Fifth Amendment rights; the Commonwealth must be estopped from prosecuting | A declination was a unilateral exercise of prosecutorial discretion, revocable, not a binding immunity or court order; no formal agreement existed | Court held an unconditional prosecutorial promise that reasonably induces detrimental reliance on waiver of the Fifth Amendment violates due process and must be enforced here; prosecution barred |
| Admissibility/use of Cosby’s civil deposition in criminal trial | Deposition was compelled by Castor’s promise and its use at trial violated due process and should be suppressed | Deposition was admissible because no binding immunity agreement existed; defendant’s reliance was unreasonable | Decision on deposition became moot after ruling that prosecution was barred; Court found reliance reasonable and deprivation of Fifth Amendment rights occurred |
| Admission of prior bad-act (Rule 404(b)) evidence from other alleged victims | Prior acts were remote, dissimilar, prejudicial, and improper propensity evidence | Prior acts showed common scheme/plan, absence of mistake, and Cosby’s knowledge (e.g., Quaaludes) with probative value outweighing prejudice | Court did not reach merits because due-process holding disposing of prosecution made the Rule 404(b) issue moot (lower courts had admitted the evidence) |
| Appropriate remedy for due-process violation | Suppression of deposition or retrial without deposition | Retrial or suppression would suffice; prosecution should not be barred permanently | Court ruled only full enforcement (barring prosecution/discharge) adequately remedied the extensive, decade-long detrimental reliance and collateral consequences |
Key Cases Cited
- Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (U.S. 1971) (prosecutorial promises forming part of plea inducement must be honored)
- Zuber, 353 A.2d 441 (Pa. 1976) (prosecutor must honor promises made in plea negotiations; equitable remedies may follow)
- Martinez, 147 A.3d 517 (Pa. 2016) (specific performance of plea terms to protect defendant’s bargain and expectations)
- Stipetich, 652 A.2d 1294 (Pa. 1995) (police lacked authority to bind prosecution; remedies for broken promises may include suppression of evidence)
- Clancy, 192 A.3d 44 (Pa. 2018) (prosecutor’s multiple roles and broad charging discretion)
- United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (U.S. 1974) (executive branch has broad discretion in prosecution decisions)
- Scotland, 614 F.2d 360 (3d Cir. 1980) (detrimental reliance on government promise can implicate due process and justify enforcement)