Title: In re: Bucks County Investigating Grand Jury, Application of Voicenet Communications, Inc. (Dissenting Statement)
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 119 MM 2004, 119MM2004
State: Pennsylvania
Issuer: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Date: November 15, 2004

[J-203-2004] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT IN RE: BUCKS COUNTY INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY APPLICATION OF: VOICENET COMMUNICATIONS, INC., OMNI TELECOM, INC., AND BRIAN ADELSON : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 119 MM 2004 Emergency Application for Reconsideration DISSENTING STATEMENT MR. JUSTICE CASTILLE Filed: November 12, 2004 I respectfully dissent. Upon Application for Reconsideration, the Court today essentially reverses its position, memorialized in its September 17, 2004 per curiam order, and remands this matter for supplementation and further consideration. It does so without citing any reason warranting reconsideration. Reconsideration by an appellate court is not a matter of right, but one of sound judicial discretion, and will be allowed only when there are compelling reasons. See Pa. R.A.P. 2543. Reconsideration is not meant to provide a second bite at the same apple, but rather, a fail-safe for instances where an initial decision was incorrect. The initial decision was not incorrect and today’s unexplained decision is unwarranted. This Court did not misapprehend the material facts or the governing law in 2 issuing its previous order. All that has changed is that some members of the Court have apparently changed their minds concerning the same facts and the same law. In my view, no compelling reasons exist to take the extraordinary measure of granting reconsideration. Because the Court’s unexplained about-face will further enmesh us in an unnecessary and ill-advised micromanagement of this Grand Jury proceeding, I dissent. See In re: Bucks County Investigating Grand Jury, Application of: Ronald P. Power et al., ___ A.2d ___ (Pa. 2004), 2004 WL 2381170 (Pa. Oct. 26, 2004) (Castille, J., joined by Eakin, J. dissenting).