Grand jury report on priest sex abuse needs to be public, AG says |

Grand jury report on priest sex abuse needs to be public, AG says

Tom Davidson
Dan Speicher | Tribune-Review
Attorney General Josh Shapiro talks about the toll of opioids on Pennsylvania while giving the keynote address, during the Addressing the Opioids Epidemic in Western Pennsylvania summit at Westmoreland County Community College in Hempfield Township on Wednesday, Jan. 17, 2018.

Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro plans to take legal action Monday to object to the continued suppression of a grand jury report on child sex abuse in Catholic dioceses across the state.

The grand jury investigation examined decades of sexual abuse reports in the six dioceses ­— including Greensburg and Pittsburgh.

The state Supreme Court this week blocked the release of the report to give unindicted people named in it a chance to challenge any findings.

“The people of Pennsylvania have a right to see the report, know who is attempting to block its release and why, and to hear the voices of the victims of sexual abuse within the Church,” Shapiro said in a statement.

Shapiro spokesman Joe Grace said he couldn’t provide more details about what Shapiro planned to do Monday because all court filings in the case remain under seal.

Under grand jury secrecy rules, the names of those challenging its report also remain sealed.

The Pittsburgh-based grand jury met for 22 months and completed its work at the end of April.

The 800-plus page grand jury report was given to officials in the dioceses of Pittsburgh, Greensburg, Harrisburg, Erie, Allentown and Scranton in May. Spokesmen for six dioceses, where officials are believed to be crafting their responses, said church officials had no objection to its release.

People named in the report who weren’t indicted petitioned the Supreme Court, saying they were denied due process to defend their reputations.

Noting that reputation is a right under the state constitution and that some petitions have yet to be reviewed, the justices said they will review their temporary stay on the report once those challenges “can be resolved, or an informed and fair determination can be made as to whether a continued stay is warranted,” according to the unsigned court opinion.

Initially, Shapiro didn’t oppose delaying the release of the report, but a news release issued Friday said the attorney general was planning to act Monday in response to an invitation in the opinion to “lodge an objection to a continued state” of the report’s release.

Abuse victims who testified before the investigative panel and attorneys who represented them said they were shocked when the Supreme Court blocked the release of the document.

The court intervened to block the release of the report last week after Judge Norman A. Krumenacker III, the grand jury supervisor, denied a series of petitions filed by unindicted individuals seeking an opportunity to cross-examine their accusers.

The Supreme Court’s chief justice, Thomas Saylor, declined to comment through a spokeswoman, and lawyers for the unnamed people challenging the report did not respond to requests for comment.

Meanwhile, seven news organizations, including The Associated Press, on Friday filed a motion to intervene in the case in a bid to argue that the court should release the report, contending that it is required by law. If the court decides it needs more time to consider the legal challenges, it could immediately order the report’s release with only those parts that are in question shielded from view, lawyers for the news organizations wrote.

The Associated Press contributed to this report. Tom Davidson is a Tribune-Review staff writer. Reach him at 724-226-4715, [email protected] or via Twitter @kingofgonzo.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.