Opinion ID: 4493937
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Parties’ Arguments Regarding Issue 17

Text: As noted above, the Act defines “Investigating grand jury report” as a “report submitted by the investigating grand jury to the supervising judge regarding conditions relating to organized crime or public corruption or both; or proposing recommendations for legislative, executive, or administrative action in the public interest based upon stated findings.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 4542. Stated succinctly, Petitioner contends that the Report fails to meet this definition. Rather, in Petitioner’s view, the Report simply is an attempt to shame and punish Petitioner, a result that the Legislature did not intend when it promulgated the Act. Consequently, Petitioner insists that the supervising judge erred by ordering the public release of the Report. The District Attorney, on the other hand, asserts that the Report makes recommendations for legislative, executive, or administrative action in the public interest, 7 Given that we summarize the arguments that Petitioner and the District Attorney provide in their redacted briefs, we explain those parties’ contentions in the most general of terms. [J-67-2019] - 6 and thus, the Report meets the statutory definition of “Investigating grand jury report.” Notwithstanding, the District Attorney fails to explain, either in his redacted or unredacted brief, how the recommended actions in the Report are “in the public interest,” as opposed to the interest of a specific group, such as the alleged victims. In fact, the District Attorney insists that the Report focuses on Petitioner’s alleged victims, both identified and unidentified, which is inconsistent with the District Attorney’s theory that the Report comports with the statutory definition of “Investigating grand jury report.” In the end, the District Attorney takes the position, without meaningful support, that the supervising judge was within her discretion to release the Report publicly. The OAG has not had access to the Report. The OAG, however, observes that, on the public record, it is unclear whether the Report proposes general recommendations as contemplated by the Act. For example, the OAG notes that the supervising judge’s opinions suggest that the Report concerns only one private individual and that its recommendations all relate specifically to that individual. The OAG opines that the Act requires something more to justify publicly releasing an investigating grand jury report. The OAG ultimately is of the view that, before this Court confronts any of Petitioner’s constitutional claims, it should remand the case to the supervising judge with directions to consider whether the Report meets the statutory definition of “Investigating grand jury report,” as the judge did not squarely address such an issue in her opinions.