25 Pa. D. & C.5th 429
Pennsylvania Court of Common P...2012Background
- Motions by alleged victims 3, 4, 5, and 7 request anonymity and use of pseudonyms during trial; amicus brief supports privacy protections.
- Court questions whether adult witnesses can be anonymized in a criminal case under Pennsylvania law.
- Court notes extensive pretrial efforts to protect victims’ privacy; ultimately decides veil must lift during trial.
- Attorney for the Commonwealth contends there is no legal basis for anonymity; defense seeks access to juror background information.
- Defense seeks a hearing to determine whether the Commonwealth collected juror information; court denies hearing due to lack of factual verification and work product protections.
- Media entities seek intervention and clarification of decorum order on electronic device use; court grants intervention but modifies decorum order to restrict verbatim transmission while allowing tools of the trade.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether adults who are crime victims may testify under pseudonyms | Victims seek anonymity to avoid harm | No legal basis under Pennsylvania law | Denied; anonymity not required |
| Whether defendant may obtain juror background information collected by the Commonwealth | Defense entitled to discovery of juror information | Work product privilege; no due process right to such information | Denied; work product privilege; no due process entitlement |
| Whether media decorum order prohibiting verbatim courtroom quotations should be clarified or rescinded | Direct quotations should be allowed in electronic reporting | Order aims to preserve fair trial and decorum | Decorum paragraph 7 rescinded; reporters may use electronic tools but not transmit verbatim accounts |
Key Cases Cited
- Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (U.S. 1947) (work product protection in litigation)
- United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225 (U.S. 1975) (limits of work product against due process)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (duty to disclose exculpatory evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Kennedy, 876 A.2d 939 (Pa. 2005) (work product and discovery in Pennsylvania)
- Commonwealth v. Caplan, 192 A.2d 984 (Pa. 1963) (historical development of disclosure to avoid surprise)