Opinion ID: 2831057
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: 1. This Court has jurisdiction over the instant petition pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 722(5) and Pa.R.A.P. 3331(a)(3). 2. The petition for review is timely-filed because: (a) OAG had 10 days from the date of entry of the Order at issue t to file the petition, see Pa.R.A.P. 3331(a); Pa.R.A.P. 1512(b)(3);(b) the Order at issue was filed on October 30, 2014, rendering a filing deadline of November 10, 2014;2 and (c) OAG filed the petition on November 10, 2014. PARTY SEEKING REVIEW 2. The Petitioner is the Office of Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania(OAG). GOVERNMENT UNIT RESPONSIBLE FOR DETERMINATION SOUGHT TO BE REVIEWED 3. Respondent is the Supervising Judge of the Thirty-Fifth Statewide Investigating Grand Jury, the Honorable William R. Carpenter(the Supervising Judge). DETERMINATION SOUGHT TO BE REVIEWED 4. OAG seeks this Courts review of the Supervising Judges Order dated October 30, 2014, which denies OAGs motion for reconsideration of the Order entered by the Supervising Judge dated August 27, 2014 as amended twice thereafier on September 1 7, 201 4. See copy ofthe October 30, 2014 Order, attached as Exhibit A. The Order at issue rendered final a previously-entered order that was amended twice. See infra. 2 Because the 10th day following October 30, 2014 was Sunday, November 9, 2014, the filing deadline is the next business day, Monday, November 10, 2014. See 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1908. 2 5. In other words, the determination sought to be reviewed encompassesfour related and interconnected orders: a. the August 27, 2014 Order, which states, inter alia, that: (i) OAG shall refrain from any involvement in or access to the investigative efforts of the Special Prosecutor in Notice No. 123; (ii) OAG and its employees shall have no access to the transcripts, exhibits, and other information pertaining to Notice No. 123; (iii) OAG employees shall refrain from engaging in or soliciting any act of obstruction, intimidation, or retaliation against any witness summoned by the Special Prosecutor in Notice No. 123; and (iv) any person who engages in an act of obstruction, intimidation, or retaliation against a witness summoned by the Special Prosecutor in Notice No. 123 may be prosecuted pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S.A. 4955;3 § b. the September 17, 2014 Order, which amended the August 27, 2014 Order to permit a second hearing -- this one with the ostensible involvement of OAG -- to be conducted on the subject of allegations of obstruction, witness intimidation, and/or retaliation; 4 c. another September 17, 2014 Order, which amended the August 27, 2014 Order and indicated, inter alia, that only the following persons are subject to the prohibition of obstruction, intimidation, or retaliation of any witness and criminal prosecution therefore: (i) any person who has been sworn to Grand Jury secrecy;(ii) any person who has or had access to any Grand Jury information; and (iii) any person associated with the J. Whyatt Mondesire investigation and proceedings;5 d. the October 30, 2014 Order, which renderedjìnal the amended protective order. See copies of the August 27, 2014 Order and the two September 17, 2014 Orders, attached as Exhibits B, C, and D,respectively. For purposes of clarity and ease of reference, this Order is referred to hereinafter as the initial protective order. Prior to the entry of the initial protective order, the Supervising Judge conducted an in camera exparte hearing that excluded OAG and its employees completely. For purposes of clarity and ease of reference, the initial protective order as amended by the two September 1 7, 2014 Orders is referred to hereinafter as the amended protective order. 3 STATEMENT OF OBJECTIONS TO THE DETERMINATION