190 A.3d 560
Pa.2018Background
- The 40th Statewide Investigating Grand Jury (PA, convened 2016) produced a lengthy Report 1 naming over 300 clergy as "predator priests" and describing alleged sexual abuse and concealment by Church officials. The report was submitted to the supervising judge under the Investigating Grand Jury Act.
- The supervising judge accepted and filed the report, stating it was supported by a preponderance of the evidence, and allowed named living persons a discretionary right to submit written responses.
- Dozens of named clergy (Appellants) appealed, arguing the report's individualized condemnations were unsupported, false or misleading, and that publication without meaningful pre-deprivation process violated their state and federal due process and reputation protections.
- The supervising judge denied requests for pre-publication evidentiary hearings and declined to redact findings supported by his preponderance determination; he nonetheless certified orders for immediate appeal.
- This Supreme Court of Pennsylvania majority held that reputational interests are fundamental under the Pennsylvania Constitution, that the grand jury process as used here created substantial risk of erroneous deprivations, and that written-response rights alone were insufficient; it authorized a temporarily redacted interim public release and ordered further proceedings (including appointment of a special master and oral argument) to determine what additional pre-deprivation process, if any, must be provided.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether publication of individualized condemnatory findings without pre-deprivation hearings violates due process and state reputational protections | Appellants: public naming and findings require meaningful pre-deprivation process (e.g., evidentiary hearings) because Pennsylvania protects reputation as a fundamental right | Commonwealth: the Investigating Grand Jury Act’s notice and written-response procedure suffices; grand jury reports are investigative (not adjudicative) and public interest favors release | Court: reputational interests are fundamental; written-response alone is inadequate for a report of this scale; further process must be considered (oral argument ordered) |
| Whether supervising judge’s preponderance-of-evidence review (as conducted) sufficiently protects individuals | Appellants: judge’s report‑wide preponderance assessment may mask errors as to individuals; needs individualized review or additional process | Commonwealth: preponderance review and statute authorize acceptance and filing; if report not supported, entire report should be rejected | Court: preponderance review in a nonadversarial grand jury setting is insufficient to protect individual reputations; statute cannot override constitutional due process |
| Availability of excision (redaction) as a remedy versus suppression of whole report | Appellants: seek excision of unsupported or false individualized findings before public release | Commonwealth: defects require rejection/suppression of the entire report; opposes judicial ‘‘rewriting’’ | Court: excision is an available remedy; the Court will permit temporary redactions to protect appellants pending further proceedings and special-master review |
| Scope of interim public disclosure while preserving appellants’ rights | Media: immediate full release or redacted interim version omitting identities of appellants | Appellants: oppose release until adequate remedial process protects reputations | Court: ordered an Interim Report with temporary redactions masking identities of appellants; set schedule, special master, and limited rights to challenge redactions; directed oral argument on broader process issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359 (U.S. 1956) (explains grand jury’s historical, nonadversarial, evidentiary freedom)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (framework for balancing due process procedural protections)
- Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420 (U.S. 1960) (lesser procedural protections apply in investigatory contexts)
- Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (U.S. 1976) (federal diminution of reputational interest; discussed and distinguished)
- United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 (U.S. 1992) (limits on judicial supervision of federal grand juries)
- In re Grand Jury Proceedings, Special Grand Jury 89-2, 813 F. Supp. 1451 (D. Colo. 1993) (criticizes nonadversarial grand jury process and supports redaction/release under protections)
- Biglieri v. Washoe County Grand Jury Report, 95 Nev. 696 (Nev. 1979) (recognizes grand jury reportorial function)
- Thompson v. Macon-Bibb County Hosp. Auth., 246 Ga. 777 (Ga. 1980) (acknowledges public benefits of reports but stresses due process when individuals are criticized)