Unsealing of Investigating Grand Jury Report
In Re: The 30th County Investigating Grand Jury, docket no. 15 EM 2022
This case arises from a Petition for Specialized Review pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 1611 of the March 4, 2022 Order of the Honorable Kai N. Scott of Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Supervising Judge of the Thirtieth County Investigating Grand Jury, Ordering the Unsealing and Public Filing of the Investigating Grand Jury Report of Investigating Grand Jury 30. The Petition, filed by an unnamed party “who is identified in the investigating grand jury report at issue,” seeks Supreme Court review of the following issues relating to the release of the grand jury report:
1. Did the supervising judge err by ordering the public release of the investigating grand jury report of the Thirtieth County Investigating Grand Jury because the Report does not meet the statutory definition of an investigating grand jury report as that term is defined pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 4542?
2. Did the supervising judge err in concluding that the findings in the report were supported by a preponderance of the evidence where the facts and testimony presented to the grand jury were manipulated and grossly distorted to support the Commonwealth’s theory that [REDACTED] engaged in a cover-up or otherwise obstructed [REDACTED]?
3. Does the publication of the report violate [REDACTED] constitutional right to protection of [REDACTED] reputation where the report contains conclusions that are unsupported by the preponderance of the evidence and where the redactions fail to meaningfully protect [REDACTED] identity?
Petition, at 11.
By order dated February 10, 2023, from which Justices Donohue and Wecht noted dissents, the Supreme Court granted review of the issues as stated by the petitioner. Exercising extraordinary jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. §726, the Supreme Court further directed the parties to address the following additional question:
What type or degree of criticism of a named but nonindicted individual in a grand jury report warrants notice and an opportunity to be heard under 42 Pa.C.S. §4552(e), and did the supervising judge’s discretionary decision to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to some, though not all, named but nonindicted individuals in the grand jury’s report comport with principles of due process and the fundamental right to reputation under Article I, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, as interpreted by In re Fortieth Statewide Investigating Grand Jury, 190 A.3d 560 (Pa. 2018)?
2/10/23 Order at 1-2.
For more information, contact Kevin McKeon or Dennis Whitaker.