IN RE: FORTIETH STATEWIDE INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY, PETITION OF: W.T.
This text of IN RE: FORTIETH STATEWIDE INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY, PETITION OF: W.T. (IN RE: FORTIETH STATEWIDE INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY, PETITION OF: W.T.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT
IN RE: FORTIETH STATEWIDE : No. 86 WM 2018 INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY : : : PETITION OF: W.T. :
ORDER
PER CURIAM
AND NOW, this 6th day of July, 2018, upon consideration of the Petition for
Review, and in light of the Office of Attorney General’s indication that it has not fully
developed the merits of its counter-argument and its request to submit additional briefing
should this dispute proceed beyond the initial filings, this matter is to be considered by
the Court upon full briefing by the parties on an expedited basis.
Petitioner is challenging a June 14, 2018 order which the supervising judge
certified for appellate review. See Pa.R.A.P. 3331(a)(5). As identified in Petitioner’s
General Statement of Objections to the Order, with some rephrasing by this Court,
Petitioner is presenting the following appellate claims:
1. Whether the supervising judge ignored the court’s clear duty under the Investigating Grand Jury Act to consider the grand jury’s evidence and make a determination whether or not the Report’s conclusions about Petitioner are supported by the preponderance of the evidence?
2. Whether the grand jury’s release of the names and identifying characteristics of those persons of whom it is critical but did not indict for a criminal offense is not for a purpose supported by the Investigating Grand Jury Act?
3. Whether the supervising judge violated Petitioner’s fundamental rights to his good reputation and due process of law under Article I, Sections 1, 9, and 11 of the Pennsylvania Constitution by denying him a pre-deprivation hearing?
Petitioner’s brief is due by 2:00 p.m. on July 10, 2018. At that time, Petitioner shall
present an unredacted brief, which shall be filed under seal. Simultaneously, to ensure
as much public access as possible without violating grand jury secrecy, Petitioner shall
submit a redacted version of the brief suitable for public docketing. The Office of Attorney
General, as the opposing party, shall review Petitioner’s redacted brief and, no later than
2:00 p.m. on July 13, 2018, shall file a letter with the Prothonotary, either certifying that
the Office of Attorney General agrees that the redacted brief does not violate grand jury
secrecy or objecting to the release of the redacted version of the brief on the basis that it
allegedly violates grand jury secrecy.
In the event the Office of Attorney General certifies that it agrees that Petitioner’s
redacted brief does not violate grand jury secrecy, the document shall be immediately
docketed for public view. If the Office of Attorney General objects to the release of the
redacted version, such objections shall be immediately forwarded to the supervising judge
for his prompt consideration and disposition.
The Office of Attorney General’s appellate brief shall be due by 2:00 p.m. on July
13, 2018. At that time, the Office of Attorney General shall present an unredacted brief,
which shall be filed under seal. Simultaneously, the Office of Attorney General shall
submit a redacted version of the brief suitable for public docketing. Petitioner, as the
opposing party, shall review the redacted brief. Following that review, and no later than
2:00 p.m. on July 17, 2018, Petitioner shall file a letter, either certifying agreement that
the Office of Attorney General’s redacted brief does not violate grand jury secrecy or
identifying with specificity any aspects of the redacted version which Petitioner believes
violate such secrecy.
[86 WM 2018] - 2 In the event Petitioner certifies agreement that the Office of Attorney General’s
redacted brief does not violate grand jury secrecy, the document shall be immediately
docketed for public view. In the event Petitioner objects to the release of the redacted
version, such objections shall be immediately forwarded to the supervising judge for his
prompt consideration and disposition.
The parties are cautioned against instigating unnecessary ancillary litigation
regarding the production of redacted versions of the brief suitable for public docketing,
and any such ancillary litigation will not delay this Court’s resolution of the challenges to
the Report.
Any amicus curiae briefs, regardless of which side they support, shall be due by
2:00 p.m. on the fourth business day following the public disclosure of Petitioner’s or the
Office of Attorney General’s redacted brief, whichever occurs later.
In consideration of the timeliness concerns, the parties will not be permitted to
submit reply briefs. Service of all submissions must be made at the time of filing via e-
filing, fax, e-mail, or personal delivery. Requests for changes to the briefing schedule will
not be entertained, and no extensions will be granted.
Consistent with the expedited treatment of this matter, the request of the Office of
Attorney General to proceed to oral argument, which it has made in several of its answers,
is DENIED. This matter will be submitted on the briefs.
The instant order is unsealed.
[86 WM 2018] - 3
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
IN RE: FORTIETH STATEWIDE INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY, PETITION OF: W.T., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-fortieth-statewide-investigating-grand-jury-petition-of-wt-pa-2018.