*1 In re Salvatore LaRUSSA.
Appeal of Pennsylvania. COMMONWEALTH of
Supreme Pennsylvania. Court of
Argued Jan. Decided Oct. *2 Duhamel, Atty. Gen., M. Phil- Peter Noel Asst. Walter Jr., Atty. Gen., Philadelphia, Deputy lips, Common- appellant. wealth, EAGEN, JONES, O’BRIEN, J.,
Before ROB- C. ERTS, MANDERINO, POMEROY, NIX and JJ. THE
OPINION OF COURT ROBERTS, Justice. companion
This is of three this one cases which interpret must the Act of November 1080,19 (Supp.1974). P.S. 640.1-.6 §§
I. January Philadelphia Court of On Com- special jury investigate, mon Pleas a convened alleged among things, corruption other in the Philadel- (1975); 464 Pa. 346 A.2d In re Marto- rano, subpoena, ap- phia Department.2 to a Pursuant pellee grand jury- appeared LaRussa before the Salvatore proceeding, ques- August 2, on he At this allegedly paid on police tioned officers about bribes he employer knowledge of other behalf of his about his paid by employer. Appellee his con- bribes invoked privilege3 on the stitutional to answer and refused ground replies might self-incriminating. that his petitioned August 16, 1974, Attorney
On General grant appellee and to court to grand jury. The order him to before investigating police grand jury asserted corruption necessary to and that was alleged payments to appellee’s testimony to obtain about day, After conducted officers. granted petition. grand jury immediately but Appellee returned to the *3 persisted He was refusing questions. its to answer The again brought court. once before the to an- court, giving appellee opportunity another after contempt appellee to be civil questions, swer the found period of six for a of him confined court and ordered contempt. purged himself of months or until he Superior appeal in the appellee an day, The filed same and, Superior bail set day, that the Court Later Court. On posted, appellee was released. when bail had been the su- Superior reversed 11, the Court December 1974, Pa.Super. contempt pervising court’s citation. petitioned (1974).4 The Commonwealth petition was appeal. The of for allowance this Court for a 1975, recognizing the need July 7, granted.5 On 1974, Philadelphia Investigation the 2. of Pa.Const, I, XIV; § art. V & Amends. 3. See U.S.Const. dissenting opinions. separate Judges and Jacobs filed Cercone joined Judge Spaeth both dissents. July of Act Act Appellate Court Jurisdiction 5. See II, 211.204(a) (Supp.1974). 204(a); 17 P.S. art. speedy case, disposition of we this filed an order revers- ing Superior reinstating the Court and the order pleas. order of the court of common noted that these We opinions follow. would
II. Attorney The that Court decided Gener- petition in that to al’s was insufficient establish failed appellee’s “organized testimony that related crime to only alleged racketeering.” view, In or its corrupt payments appellee to that had made “isolated” that the court officers. It concluded appellee ordering granting him to erred contempt testify. It therefore that the citation held imposed were invalid. sanctions holding, misinterpreted In so un- Act.7 Section 1 of states the circumstances Act granted. may der which be “If, relating organized proceeding crime or in a investigat- racketeering court, jury or before a ing body up legislative byor set enactment order any person Governor, testify or to shall refuse to ground produce any on the evidence other kind him, may testimony to incriminate or evidence tend testimony. person give may such ordered except upon given an The not be order to shall attorney order of after in which general of immu- need has established a *4 provided.” nity, as hereinafter Act, may grant to a court Under the proceeding testify only him witness if the and order to con- objection other to the form of the or the 6. No either by appellee. tent of the is asserted strictly the be con- 7. The Court resolved that Act must inappropriate. is- strued. In our view strict construction is This Falone, 42, supra, fully 346 sue is discussed In re at at 9. A.2d 90 testimony “organized sought
which his is relates to crime racketeering.” require wit- or The Act not that the does any organized specifically or rack- ness know of criminal eteering require the the Act that activities. Nor does testimony, standing alone, witness’s the exis- establish “organized racketeering.” tence of either or crime proceeding, testimony, If the rather the relates to than “organized racketeering,” or is autho crime the court grant rized to the to immunity and order witness requirements if the other the Act are See of satisfied. Falone, 42, In Here, re (1975). 464 Pa. investigating grand into, jury impanelled inquire was among things, systematic police other cor and official ruption. 4, Investigation In re See 197 Philadelphia 458 n. Pa. grand (1974). Thus, scope of the 487 n.
jury’s investigation clearly “organized or crime relates to racketeering” Act of as defined the Act. Novem See (Supp.1975). ber 1080, 6, 640.6 P.S.
Moreover, we conclude that the Commonwealth upon supervising adequate establishes an basis which the court could sufficient need to find that there was 1) that immunity. found The corruption; grand jury investigate is mandated to La 2) grand reliably that jury that informed Philadelphia paid Russa had to members bribes may inferred that Department, from which subject possessed he information relevant testimony investigation; obtaining 3) LaRussa’s 4) proceeding; jury’s necessary to the against privilege had invoked that because LaRussa if testimony not be obtained could self-incrimination his Pa. granted. not were 42, 346 A.2d 9 erred
It must be concluded accordance In order. reversing court’s the order reverse July 7, we the order of with *5 Superior Court reinstate the order contempt pleas appellee holding in of court. common So ordered.
EAGEN, J., in result. concurs dissenting opinions. NIX, JJ., file MANDERINO MANDERINO, (dissenting). Justice expressed by agree I with the view I cannot dissent. inap Act majority is that strict construction only legislation is propriate. construction of Strict sought appropriate freedom is when a citizen’s standard I affirm order be curtailed. would in for Court’s the reasons contained Investigating 1974, Special opinion. In re (1975). Pa.Super. 395, 332 A.2d 534 NIX, (dissenting). Justice subpoenaed appellee before
In the case instant jury investigating alleged corruption Phila- in a delphia Department. I believe 640.11 allegedly designed in- to citizens not corruption; rather to investi- volved individual acts of activity conspiratorial gate the true vast networks of Therefore, organized I dis- involved crime. those my expressed in dissent reasons Part II of sent Pa. A.2d 9 22, 1968, seq. 19 P.S. 640.1 et Act of November (Supp.1974-75).