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

Heading: Grand Jury Reports

Text: We begin our analysis with a discussion of grand jury reports and a related document, namely, the presentment. 7 The grand jury is an institution with deep historical roots. See, e.g. , Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359 , 362, 76 S.Ct. 406 , 408, 100 L.Ed. 397 (1956) (The grand jury is an English institution, brought to this country by the early colonists and incorporated in the Constitution by the Founders.); In re Report & Rec. of June 5, 1972 Grand Jury, 370 F.Supp. 1219 , 1222 (D.D.C. 1974) (By virtue of the Fifth Amendment, grand jury prerogatives were given institutional status in the United States, and grand juries have ever since played a fundamental role in our criminal justice system.). The operation of grand juries in a unique, non-adversarial, secret environment -- where qualitative rules pertaining to the consideration of evidence do not apply and witnesses are not subject to cross-examination -- offers substantial advantages in terms of the gathering and review of information. See Costello, 350 U.S. at 364 , 76 S.Ct. at 409 (explaining, with reference to the whole history of the grand jury institution, that laymen conduct  their inquiries unfettered by technical rules). But these features also implicate concomitant limitations. As related by a federal district court: The need for safeguards on the grand jury is enhanced by the fact that it is not bound by the rules of evidence that normally protect the publicly accused from baseless or unduly prejudicial information. The grand jury can hear any rumor, tip, hearsay, or innuendo it wishes, in secret, with no opportunity for cross-examination. Costello v. U.S., 350 U.S. 359 , 76 S.Ct. 406 , 100 L.Ed. 397 (1956). The grand jury is not required to hear or consider evidence which would exonerate a target of an investigation, and the fairness of its methods is unreviewable. U.S. v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 , 112 S.Ct. 1735 , 118 L.Ed. 2d 352 (1992). In re Grand Jury Proceedings, Special Grand Jury 89-2, 813 F.Supp. 1451 , 1463 (D. Colo. 1993) ; accord Simpson v. Langston, 281 Ark. 458 , 664 S.W.2d 872 , 873 (1984) ; Fabiano v. Palos Hills, 336 Ill.App.3d 635 , 271 Ill.Dec. 40 , 784 N.E.2d 258 , 276 (2002) (The absence of cross-examination and the nonadversarial nature of grand jury proceedings increase the risk that false testimony will go undetected[.]). 8 Manifestly, secrecy will serve as a check on grand jury power, since, to the degree that the grand jury's influence is confined to the jury room, the potential for impact on reputational rights is constrained. See Special Grand Jury 89-2, 813 F.Supp. at 1464 . Nevertheless, the General Assembly has authorized Pennsylvania investigating grand juries to issue public reports. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 4552. Moreover, such reports -- like the institution of the grand jury itself -- have a long lineage. See, e.g. , Biglieri v. Washoe Cty. Grand Jury Report, 95 Nev. 696 , 601 P.2d 703 , 705 (1979) (The reportorial function of the grand jury, serving to enlighten the community on matters of public importance, occupies an important position in our democratic form of government.). Significantly, however, courts draw a sharp distinction between grand jury reports that speak generally to public affairs and those that impugn named persons. Compare Ex Parte Faulkner, 221 Ark. 37 , 251 S.W.2d 822 , 823 (1952) (So long as grand jury reports relate to general conditions affecting the public welfare and without reflecting specifically upon the character, or censuring the conduct, of individual citizens they serve a wholesome purpose and are frequently followed by beneficial results to the community.), with Application of United Elec. Radio & Mach. Workers of Am., 111 F.Supp. 858 , 867 (S.D.N.Y. 1953) ([A] man should not be subject to a quasi-official accusation of misconduct which he cannot answer in an authoritative forum.). 9 In this regard, substantial controversy  arises when the reporting function is directed toward targeted condemnation. See, e.g. , Thompson v. Macon-Bibb Cty. Hosp. Auth. , 246 Ga. 777 , 273 S.E.2d 19 , 21 (1980) (Although there are important even compelling reasons for allowing a grand jury to bring the misconduct and malfeasance of specific public officials to light, this beneficial aspect of grand jury reporting must give way to the need for due process and fairness to the individual.); 10 Brooks v. Binderup , 39 Cal. App. 4th 1287 , 1292, 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 501 (1995) ([C]ourts and commentators have long recognized the vulnerability of unindicted individuals who are openly criticized in grand jury reports.). 11 In New York, before the advent there of statutory procedural safeguards, including the right of criticized persons to appear before a grand jury, see N.Y. CRIM. PROC. L. § 190.85 , the appellate courts displayed a particular hostility towards grand jury reports and presentments. For example, in People v. McCabe, 148 Misc. 330 , 266 N.Y.S. 363 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1933), the court opined: A presentment is a foul blow. It wins the importance of a judicial document; yet it lacks its principal attributes -- the right to answer and to appeal. It accuses but furnishes no forum for a denial. No one knows upon what evidence the findings are based. An indictment may be challenged -- even defeated. The presentment is immune. It is like the hit and run motorist. Before application can be made to suppress it, it is the subject of public gossip. The damage is done. The injury it may unjustly inflict may never be healed. Id. at 367 ; 12 accord Davis, 257 So.2d at 886-88 . See generally In re North, 16 F.3d 1234 , 1239 (D.C. Cir. 1994) ([V]arious courts have struck down with strong language efforts by grand juries to accuse persons of crime while affording them no forum in which to vindicate themselves[.] (citations and internal quotations omitted) ). 13 The core concern of the courts has been with the protection of reputational rights. The Supreme Court of Minnesota has offered the following perspective about the  potential harm to those rights that may be inflicted by a grand jury report: The judicial imprimatur under which a grand jury operates gives to its pronouncements a ring of proven truth which they may not deserve. A formal indictment, supported by probable cause, is followed by a public trial during which a whole range of constitutional provisions insure a fair hearing for the accused. An informal report, on the other hand, drafted after a secret investigation and based on an uncertain standard of proof, may be remembered long after equally informal denials or objections forthcoming from its targets are forgotten. And the report's readers may understandably but incorrectly assume that at least the rudiments of due process notice and opportunity to be heard were afforded the accused. In re Grand Jury of Hennepin Cty. , 271 N.W.2d 817 , 819 (Minn. 1978). 14 There is no challenge presently before this Court to the release of Report 1 at large, nor are we presented with a pure facial constitutional challenge to the provisions of the Investigating Grand Jury Act authorizing the public release of grand jury reports. More narrowly, the arguments presently under review seek an opportunity on Appellants' part -- as members of the Roman Catholic clergy accused by the grand jury of reprehensible conduct -- to participate in an evidentiary hearing prior to the release of the report. 15 If they can satisfy the supervising judge that the grand jury's findings are unsupported by a preponderance of the evidence (subsuming an accounting for evidence adduced at the hearing), Appellants ask that unsupported, false, and/or misleading findings be excised from the report prior to its release to the public, in order that their reputations might be preserved. See, e.g., Brief for Appellants at 27, 56-57 (positing that the Report is riddled with clear errors and improper, misleading, and unreliable accusations and conclusions and that they should have some chance to demonstrate this before the report is released publicly). In other words, Appellants request a pre-deprivation hearing as a manifestation of fundamental due process and fair play.