Photo: Jason Doiy/ALM

A state task force has issued a report to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recommending several changes to the investigating grand jury system, including regarding several key confidentiality issues that have recently come before the justices.

The 81-page report details 37 recommendations to the court made by the task force formed in 2017 charged with preparing a public report offering proposals for possible reform.

"The grand jury is an institution with deep historical roots, facilitating confidential inquiries into alleged criminal activities while also ensuring certain protections for both the subjects of investigation and witnesses who are called to testify," Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas G. Saylor said in an Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts statement issued Friday. "The court deeply appreciates the dedication and commitment of the task force members and looks forward to a review of the recommendations for change within the judicial system."

The task force suggested in its report several changes geared toward the consideration of the General Assembly, including the elimination of grand jury reports, along with creating a new process by which Pennsylvania's more sparsely populated counties could pool resources to impanel grand juries they could use collectively.

The task force also tackled a number of issues that have recently been litigated in the state Supreme Court.

For one, the task force recommended that lawyers representing witnesses should not be sworn to secrecy simply by filling out attorney appearance forms and instead should be separately administered an oath by the supervising judge, typically just before the attorney's witness testifies.

A split Supreme Court ruled in August 2018 in In re Fortieth Statewide Investigating Grand Jury that the appearance forms are overbroad and invited the task force to recommended additional modifications.

The task force also suggested that trial judges, not supervising judges, should control the release of grand jury material in a case.

In addition, again citing Fortieth Statewide Investigating Grand Jury, the task force offered a proposed definition of "testimony before the investigating grand jury" as used in 42 Pa.C.S. Section 4549(d), for the purposes of clarifying what witnesses and their attorneys may or may not disclose.

Under the proposed definition, "testimony before the investigating grand jury" would include "questions the witness is asked, the responses of the witness, and documents or tangible items the witness is shown in the course of his or her testimony."

The members of the task force include Judge Anthony M. Mariani (chairman) of the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas; President Judge George N. Zanic of the Huntingdon County Court of Common Pleas; Sal Cognetti Jr. of Cognetti & Cimini in Scranton; Linda Dale Hoffa of Dilworth Paxson in Philadelphia; Ronald Eisenberg of the Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office; Thomas J. Farrell of Farrell Reisinger & Comber in Pittsburgh; and Associate Dean Wesley M. Oliver of the Duquesne University School of Law in Pittsburgh.

"On behalf of the task force members, we extend our sincere thanks to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court for the opportunity to serve the court in this capacity," Mariani said in the AOPC's statement. "I commend the task force members for their diligent work on this project."

The Supreme Court intends to forward the report to the Criminal Procedural Rules Committee for further review and analysis of the proposed changes, according to the AOPC.

"The suggestions for legislative changes, which the task force itself recognized could be viewed as beyond its mandate, are not directed to the Supreme Court," the AOPC said.

The report also made suggestions on increasing witness safety, such as configuring grand jury facilities to allow witnesses to come and go unseen by the public.

"There have been instances where witnesses appearing before investigating grand juries have been identified, as their arrivals and departures were in view of the general public. To protect secrecy, the task force recommends that, when grand jury facilities are being constructed or remodeled, that they be designed to permit witnesses to enter and leave outside the view of the public," the report said.

Additionally, judicial training was suggested for supervising judges.

"A formalized training program will not only provide foundational information to newly appointed jurists, but will also have the benefit of standardizing the supervision of grand juries," the report said. "The training program should be immediately accessible, as the time period between a supervising judge's appointment and the judge's assumption of his or her duties is typically no more than a few weeks. Live judicial training courses would be unsuitable, as they are impracticable to plan on short notice and, given the small number of judges who would need the training, would not be cost-efficient. Instead, the optimal approach would be a pre-recorded video training program that would be accessible on demand."

Zack Needles contributed to this report.

Read More

Pa. Grand Jury Sex-Abuse Report to Remain Redacted, Justices Rule

Pa. Supreme Court Curbs Grand Jury Secrecy for Attorneys

Power to Issue a Report Without a Criminal Charge Is a Violation of the Pa. Constitution