ShareThis Page
Ruling keeps John Does’ identities a secret |

Ruling keeps John Does’ identities a secret

| Wednesday, July 25, 2001 12:00 a.m

UNIONTOWN – Fayette County Judge Gerald R. Solomon on Tuesday ruled the identities of two men involved in the case of a former Fayette County commissioner alleged to have acted as a madam will remain a secret, unless the men are charged or subpoenaed to testify at her trial.

Solomon’s order came almost two months after the Pennsylvania Superior Court ordered Solomon to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the public’s right to know the names of the two men, now referred to as John Doe No. 1 and John Doe No. 2, is outweighed by the potential harm and prejudice the men would receive. This hearing came after the Tribune-Review Publishing Co. filed an appeal of Solomon’s orders.

Former commissioner Susanne Teslovich was arrested in March 2000 and charged with two felony and four misdemeanor counts of prostitution.

When District Attorney Nancy Vernon announced that Teslovich’s phone log would be filed of as part of discovery material, the John Does asked the court to have their names stricken from the log. In one instance, Solomon did so without holding a hearing.

Solomon, in the order filed Tuesday with the Clerk of Courts office, wrote, ‘John Doe No. One and John Doe No. Two have shown good cause in this case to seal their names because the public release of this information would unnecessarily damage the reputation and privacy interests of these third parties.’

Solomon said his order only protects the men in one document and does not prevent the publication if the names are gathered from other sources.

Solomon also indicated the men’s privacy ‘will only be maintained so long as these third parties are not charged with a criminal offense arising from the Teslovich case, or until they are subpoenaed to provide testimony in the Teslovich case.’

Thus far, Teslovich has been the only individual charged.

Teslovich’s telephone log detailed the phone numbers of each incoming call, the person or business name to which the phone and number is registered and what services or information the caller sought.

At last month’s hearing, Ronald Barber, the attorney representing the Tribune Review, argued that the men could not ask the court for protection when the court, itself, did not know their identities. At this hearing, Uniontown attorney Samuel Davis, representing both John Does, said that his clients are professional persons, hold professional licenses and have practices. Davis argued that the publication of his clients’ names would subject them to unnecessary pain and prejudice against them.

Solomon noted that Dr. Paul Bernstein, a licensed psychologist, testified as an expert on behalf of the Does – though he had never spoken with them. Bernstein said the publication of the names of John Doe No. 1 and John Doe No. 2 would cause them severe pain and harm to their reputations in the community and their practices. This publication would also jeopardize their licenses and cause anxiety, guilt and fear, said Bernstein. Solomon said this anxiety, fear and guilt would constitute severe pain.

Bernstein testified that if the men’s names were associated with an escort service, this has the potential to cause severe pain, even if the allegation were true or false, wrote Solomon.

‘If the names of John Doe No. One and John Doe No. Two are published, the general public will perceive that they were involved in the procurement of prostitutes,’ said Solomon. ‘This perception will not be based on any facts, or an investigation that has yet to make a decision whether to prosecute.’

‘Persons who have not been charged as defendants in a criminal case have a recognized right to privacy,’ Solomon wrote.

Although the Tribune-Review has been through the appellate courts on the matter before, the newspaper will continue with an expedited appeal.

‘We think that it’s important that this issue is deiced prior to the trial in this matter – there’s no point in delaying the public’s right to know,’ said Ronald D. Barber, a lawyer with the Pittsburgh firm of Strassburger, McKenna, Gutnick & Potter, which represents the Tribune-Review.

Teslovich, 54, of Smock, Menallen Township, is allege to have acted as a madam of a prostitution ring that operated from her home. The business, First Class Entertainment Service, was alleged to be an escort service.

Teslovich is awaiting trial.

According to Assistant District Attorney Mark Brooks, the Teslovich case could be tried in September.

Categories: News
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.