In re Fortieth Statewide Investigating Grand Jury
197 A.3d 712
Pa.2018Background
- The 40th Statewide Investigating Grand Jury issued Report 1 naming over 300 priests and condemning some as "predator priests." Eleven named priests (Petitioners) challenged the report as threatening their constitutional right to reputation under the Pennsylvania Constitution.
- This Court previously (July 27, 2018) held that the magnitude and condemnatory nature of Report 1 posed substantial reputational risks and that enhanced procedural protections could be required; interim redactions of Petitioners’ identifying information were ordered while remedy issues were briefed.
- Petitioners sought procedures to vindicate reputation rights: de novo hearings before the supervising judge, the right to testify before the grand jury, discovery, cross-examination, and the ability to present rebuttal/exculpatory evidence.
- The Commonwealth proposed recalling the grand jury or empaneling a new one (so Petitioners could testify and submit evidence), or alternatively allowing the supervising judge to review the existing record under the Act’s preponderance standard and permit discretionary responses under § 4552(e).
- The Court concluded neither party’s proposed remedies were authorized by the Investigating Grand Jury Act and that reopening the disbanded grand jury or ordering a de novo evidentiary hearing before the supervising judge would impermissibly rewrite the statutory scheme.
- Because no other judicial remedy is presently available, the Court made permanent the prior interim redactions of Petitioners’ names and identifying information to protect their reputational due process rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Petitioners) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether meaningful pre-publication process is required for named but non‑indicted individuals | Reputation is a fundamental interest; due process (Mathews/Bundy test) requires meaningful opportunity to rebut, including testifying before grand jury and presenting evidence | Existing Act procedures (supervising‑judge review + discretionary written response) suffice if the grand jury or a new grand jury can consider additional evidence | Court recognized reputational interest but concluded statutory process is inadequate as applied here; additional remedies proposed are not available now |
| Whether the disbanded 40th Grand Jury may be recalled or a supplemental grand jury proceeding ordered by court | Petitioners sought reopening to allow rebuttal; alternatively, they preferred adoption of the redacted Interim Report | Commonwealth proposed recalling the grand jury or empanelling a new one so Petitioners could present testimony and evidence | Recalling the disbanded grand jury or judicially ordering extra‑statutory proceedings is not authorized by the Act; denied |
| Whether the supervising judge may hold a de novo evidentiary hearing and make findings of fact based on new evidence | Petitioners requested a judicial hearing to evaluate whether criticisms are supported by a preponderance of the evidence and to correct errors | Commonwealth said supervising judge’s role is limited to review of the grand jury record; allowing de novo fact‑finding would improperly substitute judicial factfinding for the grand jury | Supervising judge lacks statutory authority to receive new evidence or conduct de novo factfinding; such a remedy is not available |
| Appropriate remedy to protect reputational rights where statutory process is inadequate | Petitioners sought a new hearing or final adoption of the Interim Report; alternatively, full removal of names from the public report | Commonwealth urged procedures short of permanent redaction and proposed supplemental grand jury action or limited judicial review under § 4552(b) | Court concluded the only viable remedy now is permanent redaction of Petitioners’ identifying information from Report 1 |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (establishes three‑part balancing test for procedural due process)
- Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420 (discusses limits on confrontation rights in grand jury proceedings)
- Carlacci v. Mazaleski, 568 Pa. 471, 798 A.2d 186 (Pennsylvania Supreme Court ordered expungement to protect reputation where statutory process was constitutionally inadequate)
- Bundy v. Wetzel, 184 A.3d 551 (Pa.) (Pennsylvania application of Mathews balancing)
- In re Vencil, 638 Pa. 1, 152 A.3d 235 (judicial review limited to whether findings are supported by a preponderance of the evidence)