Opinion ID: 6357669
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Temporary Redaction and Public Release of an Interim Grand Jury Report

Text: Returning to the matter of temporary redactions, the approach of publicly releasing an interim grand jury report with such redactions was proposed by the group of news organizations presenting themselves as Media lntervenors. 26 In directing the preparation of such a report in the accompanying Order, see infra Part VIII, we emphasize that we have employed a due-process-based protocol affording Appellants -- and all others with challenges to the grand jury report pending in other cases -- the opportunity to voice discrete objections. We have also decided to utilize the services of a special master, who will be appointed via separate order, to adjudicate any associated controversies. In this way, the Court will continue to proceed with the unwavering objective that fairness must be consistently administered to all parties in the context of grand jury reports, as is the case otherwise in the process of orderly judicial review. Individual Justices have expressed deep concern for ensuring the continued protection of the petitioner-appellants' reputational rights until the matter of a remedy is decided. Accordingly, we take this opportunity to stress the importance of fashioning the temporary redactions to effectively safeguard those interests. For example, the Commonwealth should not substitute initials for names, since this approach obviously could suggest an association between material in the report and a case caption employing a petitioner-appellant's initials, thus potentially giving rise to public speculation concerning identity. Indeed, no substitute references of any kind should be inserted into the report. Rather, some technique must be applied to temporarily mask all content which might give rise to an association between an appellant and discrete material in the report. In this respect and more broadly, the Commonwealth must employ all reasonably available measures to prevent the identification of the petitioner-appellants via either specific or contextual references in the report. The petitioner-appellants, on the other hand, must appreciate that, in addition to safeguarding their rights, it is also this  Court's present aim to make the bulk of Report 1 available to the public as soon as possible. Accordingly, they are advised that they may not assert objections to generalized content of the report simply because it may pertain to them. For example, with regard to Report 1's depiction of more than 300 clergymen as predator priests, this assertion will not be suppressed on the basis that a particular appellant has been named as being among the 300. In all events, our governing purpose should be very clear by this point, and we trust that a special master will serve ably to resolve any residual disputes.