Opinion ID: 6357669
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Remedy of Excision

Text: While the Court remains divided concerning the availability and/or scope of a pre-deprivation process, a consensus also pertains as to another remedial aspect. Specifically, this Court has determined that the remedy of excision is available with respect to a grand jury report that offends due process, or otherwise unconstitutionally impairs reputational rights, relative to a particular individual or individuals. Although the remedy of excising discrete, false or unsupported information from a 900-page report might seem relatively straightforward, the Commonwealth opposes it. Despite the grand jury's vigorous entreaty that its findings should be made public, the Commonwealth contends that, if there is a defect in the report implicated by Appellants' challenges, the entire document must be suppressed. See, e.g. , Brief for Appellee at 5 (If the responses persuade the supervising judge that, in fact, the report is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence, he must reject the report[.]). 24 Along these lines, the Commonwealth provides an extensive criticism of judicial rewriting of grand jury reports. Id. at 7. The Commonwealth's all-or-nothing approach undermines the earnestly-expressed wishes of the grand jury which it empaneled. See Report 1, at 1 (We, the members of this grand jury, need you to hear this.). It would be ideal if the grand jury remained in session, so that a broader panoply of remedies would be available to us. And it would be preferable for the grand jury to have an opportunity to correct mistakes that it may have made, if any. But the grand jury's term has expired. And we have little doubt -- upon our review of the grand jurors' explicit wishes inscribed in Report 1 -- that those jurors would prefer for any mistakes to be eliminated upon culmination of all necessary process (if any remedial pre-deprivation process can be found to be sufficient), over  suppression of their entire findings, explanations, and recommendations. Accord Carlacci v. Mazaleski , 568 Pa. 471 , 477-78, 798 A.2d 186 , 190 (2002) (holding that, although there was no statutory right to expungement of Protection From Abuse Act records, there was a due process right to such expungement, given the potential reputational harm of the extant records). 25