Coley v. Philadelphia District Attorney's Office
2013 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 406
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2013Background
- Charles Coley, serving a murder sentence since 1974, requested from the Philadelphia District Attorney (DA) copies of documents prepared for his murder trial: an immunity petition for Andre R. Anderson and witness statements from five named witnesses.
- The DA denied the request, characterizing the materials as criminal investigative records exempt from the Right-to-Know Law (RTKL).
- Coley appealed to the Court of Common Pleas, which affirmed the DA’s denial, finding the records exempt under RTKL § 708(b)(16) and the Criminal History Record Information Act (CHRIA).
- On further appeal to the Commonwealth Court, Coley argued trial use converted investigative records into public records; the DA disputed any waiver of exemptions.
- The Commonwealth Court held the five witness statements are exempt under RTKL § 708(b)(16)(ii) and CHRIA § 9106(c)(4), affirmed the denial as to those statements, but vacated and remanded the ruling on the Anderson immunity petition because the trial court had not explained the document’s contents or exemption analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether investigative witness statements are public records under the RTKL after trial use | Coley: once used at trial, records become “evidence” and public | DA: no authority that investigative records lose exempt status after trial use | Held: Statements remain exempt under RTKL §708(b)(16)(ii) and CHRIA §9106(c)(4) |
| Whether CHRIA bars disclosure of investigative information to a private requester | Coley: sought access despite CHRIA restrictions | DA: CHRIA prohibits dissemination of investigative information to non–criminal justice agencies | Held: CHRIA §9106(c)(4) precludes release to Coley (private individual) |
| Whether offering materials or witness testimony at trial waives RTKL/CHRIA exemptions | Coley: trial presentation waived exemptions | DA: introduction at trial does not automatically waive statutory exemptions; unclear whether records were actually introduced | Held: No waiver shown; even if testimony occurred, Coley did not prove the documents themselves were admitted |
| Whether the immunity petition is exempt without further factual record | Coley: seeks petition as part of trial materials | DA: trial court treated it as exempt; argued it may contain investigative info/confidential identities | Held: Remanded — trial court must review and explain whether immunity petition is exempt or redactions suffice under RTKL §706 |
Key Cases Cited
- Mitchell v. Office of Open Records, 997 A.2d 1262 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (records that on their face relate to a criminal investigation are exempt under RTKL §708(b)(16)(ii))
- Sullivan v. City of Pittsburgh, Dep’t of Public Safety, 561 A.2d 863 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989) (criminal investigative records remain exempt after an investigation ends)
- SWB Yankees LLC v. Wintermantel, 999 A.2d 672 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (scope of appellate review and plenary review under RTKL matters)
- Stein v. Plymouth Township, 994 A.2d 1179 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (RTKL review standards and scope)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (prosecution’s suppression of favorable evidence violates due process)