Commonwealth v. Sandusky
70 A.3d 886
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Sandusky trial court issued a June 26, 2012 protective order to protect ongoing grand jury investigations and victim/privacy interests, requiring defense to provide an inventory of discovery materials disclosed to defense personnel.
- Hearing revealed media disclosures of grand jury and discovery materials, including a tape of Matthew Sandusky and related transcripts, prompting protective measures.
- Defense counsel Amendola and Rominger disclosed they possessed certain discovery materials but asserted limited sharing and privacy considerations.
- Judge Feudale authorized disclosure of Matthew Sandusky’s grand jury transcript to defense prior to trial, and the Commonwealth disclosed a June 15 tape-recorded statement of Matthew Sandusky to the defense.
- The protective order directed that any materials not part of the trial record not be disclosed to third parties and extended protections to grand jury materials and potential victims.
- Rominger appealed the order seeking collateral relief, contending the order improperly compelled disclosure in violation of the work-product doctrine and related protections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether paragraph two of the order violated the work-product doctrine | Rominger argues the order compelled disclosure of defense work product | Rominger contends the order infringes privileged materials and mental impressions | Issue 1: Granted; disclosure not violative because information to be disclosed is to Court and Grand Jury, not the Commonwealth |
| Whether the unequal disclosure to defense but not prosecution is reversible | Rominger asserts unfairness from selective disclosure | Rominger argues asymmetry violates due process/privilege protections | Issue 2: Not entitled to collateral review; error may be corrected on direct appeal |
| Whether Rominger consent to the order waived work-product protections | Rominger claims consent waives privilege | Consent would waive privilege only if valid; no additional relief needed | Issue 3: Collateral review allowed, but relief denied since work-product issue already resolved |
| Whether the June 26, 2012 order is appealable as a collateral order | Rominger asserts collateral-order jurisdiction exists for order directing disclosure | Commonwealth argues limits apply; approval depends on Rule 313 | Issue 4: Collateral-order review available for the particular privilege issue asserted |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Harris, 32 A.3d 243 (Pa. 2011) (three-part collateral order test; privilege review)
- Ben v. Schwartz, 729 A.2d 547 (Pa. 1999) (public policy and privilege; privilege preservation)
- Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 130 S. Ct. 599 (U.S. 2009) (collateral-order review limits for attorney-client privilege)
- Commonwealth v. Kennedy, 876 A.2d 939 (Pa. 2005) (work-product doctrine and privilege protections)
- Rae v. Pennsylvania Funeral Directors Ass'n, 977 A.2d 1121 (Pa. 2009) (issue-by-issue collateral-order jurisdiction)
- Pilchesky v. Gatelli, 12 A.3d 430 (Pa. Super. 2011) (review of collateral issues; direct appeal considerations)
- Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Malehorn, 16 A.3d 1138 (Pa. Super. 2011) (collateral-order review; discretionary permit rules)