IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS MONTGOMERY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ~ CRIMINAL DIVISION COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA No, 6239-15 v No. 8423-15, KATHLEEN G. KANE MOTION OF ATTORNEY GENERAL KATHLEEN G. KANE 8 ‘TO QUASH BASED ON SELECTIVE AND VINDICTIVE PROSECUTION 1. Attorney General Kathleen G. Kane, by and through her counsel, Gerald L. Shargel, Esq., Seth C. Farber, Esq. and Ross M. Kramer, Esq. hereby moves the Court before the Honorable Wendy Demchick-Alloy, Justice of the Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County, 2 East Airy Street, Norristown, Pennsylvania for an Order Quashing the charges in this case hecause Attorney General Kane is the victim of selective and vindictive prosecution. 2. Leaks of grand jury information are not uncommon; neither are disclosures of other confidential information about criminal investigations. However, prosecutions for these leaks or disclosures are extraordinary. 3. Attorney General Kane was singled out for investigation and subsequent prosecution in this case as a result of the initiative of prosecutors with personal antagonism towards Atorney General Kane resulting from her exercise of her First Amendment rights and her lawful duties as Attorney General of the State of Pennsyly. Because the Federal and Pennsylvania Constitutions prohibit such selective and vindictive prosecutions, the charges in this case must be dismissed4, The defense of selective and vindictive prosecution is a question of law that is properly brought in a motion to dismiss, and is a complete defense to a criminal charge. The legal standard for selective and vindictive prosecution is detailed in Attorney General Kane’s Memorandum of Law. 5. Asa candidate for Attomey General, Attorney General Kane publicly and openly questioned and criticized the apparent mishandling of the Jerry Sandusky prosecution. In particular, she pledged that, if elected, she would commence a review of the Sandusky prosecution.’ Shortly after taking office she began that review, even retaining a former federal prosecutor, H. Geoffrey Moulton, Jr., to lead the review and produce a report on his findings.” 6. Attorney General Kane’s review received considerable public attention, and press reports suggested that the review might result in a publie finding critical of the prosecution team, including a finding that the investigation suffered from inexcusable delays " Jan Murphy, “State attorney general candidates want to review Sandusky case,” Pennlive.com, Aug. 30, 2012, |ittp://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/08/state_attomey_general_candidahtml, ? Charles Thompson, “Attorney General Kane’s Sandusky deputy seen as fair, balanced,” Pennlive.com, Feb. 4, 2013, bttp://www.pennlive.cony/midstate/index.ssf/2013/02/attorney_general_kanes_sandusk.html. > Charles Thompson, “Attorney General Kathleen Kane nears launch of Sandusky probe,” Pennlive.com, Feb. 2, 2013, http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2013/02/attorney_general_kathleen_kane_2.html (The new inquiry, [Kane] has said, would look at, among other things: Whether enough agents and investigators were dedicated to the investigation at the start? Why Sandusky ‘wasn't arrested after the first credible case was built? Why Corbett’s staff took the case before a grand jury? Did campaign contributions from board members of The Second Mile, Sandusky’s youth charity, influence matters?”); Thompson, “Attorney General Kane’s Sandusky deputy seen as fair, balanced.” (“The pledge, in essence, is to conduct a thorough review of the 33-month Sandusky probe to answer lingering questions about why Sandusky wasn’t arrested after the first credible witness came forward; why the case was turned over to 27. A lead prosecutor in the Sandusky investigation had been Frank G. Fina, and E. Mare Costanzo assisted in the prosecution, as well.* 8. The investigation and subsequent prosecution of Mr. Sandusky received enormous publicity at the time,’ and, undoubtedly, was the capstone of Fina’s career in the Office of the Attorney General (“OAG”) 9. Fina and Costanzo had left the OAG shortly after Attorney General Kane took office,® and, according to published reports, were incensed by the Attorney General’s review of their work, For example, a March 5, 2013 article in the Legal Intelligencer stated: ‘Attomeys and agents from the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office who were involved in the investigation and prosecution of Jerry Sandusky are ‘outraged’ that Attorney General Kathleen Kane is keeping her promise to investigate the office’s handling of the case, and some are prepared to 20 public ifthe review’s findings are overly critical of their work or inaccurate, sources close to the Sandusky investigation sai a grand jury; and whether extemal factors like then-Attorney General Tom Corbett’s gubernatorial aspirations influenced its pacing,”). Sara Ganim, “Jerry Sandusky trial: Prosecutor is used to the spotlight,” PennLive.com, June 10, 2012, http://www. pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/06/jerry_sandusky_prosecutor_is_u.html (Fina); Mark Shade and Dave Warner, “Jerry Sandusky waives preliminary hearing on chi sex abuse charges,” The Christian Science Monitor, Dec. 13, 2011, http://www .csmonitor,com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2011/1213/Jerry-S preliminary-hearing-on-child-sex-abuse-charges (Costanzo). See, e.g., Joe Drape, “Sandusky Guilty of Sexual Abuse of 10 Young Boys,” The New York Times, June 22, 2012, hitp://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/23/sports/neaafootball/jerry-sandusky- convicted-of-sexually-abusing-boys.hin Craig R. McCoy, “Phila. DA assembles team to investigate corruption,” Philly.com, Apr. 29, 2013, http://articles.philly.com/2013-04-29/news/38880260_1_veteran-prosecutors-political- corruption-attomey-general. indusky-wail“If they come after us, we're coming out publicly,’ said one source who held a leadership post in the office and was, involved in the investigation. Ben Present, “Prosecutors Angered Over Kane’s Sandusky Investigation,” ‘The Legal Intelligencer, Mar. 5, 2013, 10. Approximately a year later, Attorney General Kane publicly criticized a second high-profile investigation conducted by Fina during his tenure at the OAG: the “Tyron Ali” investigation, In that investigation, Fina supervised a three-year undercover sting operation into allegations of public corruption. ‘Attorney General Kane halted the investigation without bringing charges and publicly stated that Fina’s investigation was poorly conceived, badly managed, and tainted by racism because it had targeted African Americans.” 11. Shortly after Attorney General Kane made her public statements, Fina (who by then had become a prosecutor in the Philadelphia District Attomey’s Office) took the extraordinary step of writing an op-ed article publicly attacking Attomey General Kane’s decision to close the Tyron Ali investigation. In that article, Fina wrote: Attorney General Kathleen Kane ended that corruption investigation without charging any of the public officials nvolved, and she has in the past week made critical and s and I and the work negative assertions about my colleagu that we performed in the investigation. 7 Angela Couloumbis and Craig R. McCoy, “Kane: Targets committed crimes but flawed,” Philly.com, Mar. 19, 2014, http://articles.philly.com/2014-03- 19/news/48334899_1_ sting-operation-kane-sting-case (“While saying public corruption made her ‘sick,’ Kane said the sting was flawed and tainted by racism, and could not have led to successful prosecutions, “There is nothing we can do to salvage this case,’ she said.”). 4 g stillSurely, an elected official should be able to and required to speak to the citizens of this Commonwealth and explain how and why she made a decision to not pursue possible official corruption, and instead chose to criticize those who sought to bring possible crimes to light, and then remain silent when called to answer. I await AG Kane’s response to my invitation to speak to the citizens of this state — unless of course she remains, silent at her lawyer's direction. Frank G. Fina, “I challenge AG Kane to face me on the facts of corruption probe: Frank G. Fina,” PennLive Op-Ed, Mar. 24, 2014, , hittp://www.pennlive.com/opinion/2014/03/i_challenge_ag_kane_to_face_me.html 12. Only six weeks later, on May 7, 2014, Fina and Costanzo were contacted by a reporter, Christopher Brennan, who indicated that he was working on a story that would be critical of their conduct of yet another significant investigation, in this case, their failure to pursue corruption charges against J. Whyatt Mondesire, the former head of the Philadelphia chapter of the NAACP. (Exhibit A, Transcript of Conference Held in Chambers, May 12, 2014, at 2-5.) 13. This time, Fina and Costanzo took even more extraordinary measures in response to the specter of further bad publicity. First, even though Brennan himself was under no obligation of grand jury secrecy and had a First Amendment right to publish Fina and Costanzo attempted to dissuade Brennan from doing so by intimating that grand jury secrecy obligation applied to him and that publication of the article would be a “problem.” (Id. at 16.) Second, and even more unusually, and even though the Mondesire investigation had ended five years earlier, in 2009, Fina and Costanzo decided to i igate a criminal investigation.14, Accordingly, the next day, on May 8, 2014, Fina and Costanzo sent a letter to Judge William R. Carpenter “to report the release of Grand Jury information.” (Exhibit B, Letter from Chief Assistant District Attorney E. Marc Costanzo and Assistant District Attomey Frank G. Fina to Honorable William J. Carpenter, dated May 8, 2014, at 1.) ‘They wrote that they had been contacted by a reporter who claimed to have documents containing “extensive evidence and information that clearly fall within the ambit of Grand Jury secrecy.” (Id, at 1.) They offered to provide further details and answer questions and expressed a preference to do so at an in camera conference with Judge Carpenter. (Id. at 2.) 15. On May 12, 2014, Fina and Costanzo appeared before Judge Carpenter in an in camera, sealed proceeding. (Exhibit A at 1.)° During their appearance, Fina and Costanzo again stated that they had been contacted by a reporter who claimed to have information related to a prior grand jury proceeding. (Id, at 2-3.) Fina said that he believed it was his “duty” to report the leak and offered his legal conclusion that “the individual who had provided [the reporter] with this e-mail in all likelihood had committed a crime, possibly even a felony.” (Id. at 4.) 1a and Costanzo what action they were requesting that the 16, Judge Carpenter asked F Sourt take. (Id, at 10.) In response, Fina noted that Judge Carpenter could investigate the alleged leak as a potential criminal violation. (Id. at 11-12.) Fina also * Fina and Costanzo acted in their official capacity in their correspondence with, and appearance before, the supervising judge of the investigating grand jury. First, they wrote Judge Carpenter on the stationery of the Philadelphia County District Attorney and signed their letter as Assistant District Attorneys. (Exhibit B at 1). Second, they gave their appearances at the start of the conference as Assistant District Attorneys in Philadelphia County. (Exhibit A at 1.) Third, before reporting the leak to Judge Carpenter, Fina had informed the Philadelphia County District Attorney that he would be doing so. (Id. at 6.)suggested the appointment of a special prosecutor to pursue criminal charges. 12) (“Judge Garb on one occasion appointed an independent prosecutor, answerable only to him, somebody from outside the A.G.’s Office, and that person looked into an alleged secrecy breach.”). Fina even insinuated that he himself would be particularly qualified to run a leak investigation. (Id, at 12) (“I have conducted some of these reviews when I was in the Attorney General’s Office on behalf of different supervising judges. I did it for Judge Garb. [also did it for Judge Feudale and a judge in Pittsburgh once.”), ina also suggested that the target of such a special prosecutor's investigation should be the Office of Attorney General: ‘This document, as far as I’m aware, only existed on a historical database somewhere in the Attorney General’s Office. Who is looking through those historical e-mails I am. not aware specifically, but it has now apparently been handed out to the media. (Id, at 12-13.) Fina continued: The Court: What you are saying is, it would appear, without any firm basis for knowledge, that it probably was leaked from within the Attorney General’s Office. That is what you would suspect Mr. Fina: Your Honor, again I don’t see any other reasonable explanation at this time, (Id. at 14-15.) nily, during the conference, Fina admitted to Judge Carpenter that he and 18. Signi Costanzo had a personal basis for antagonism against Attorney General Kane. In particular, Fina stated:T know we are certainly feeling like a couple of ten-point bucks in the first week of deer season lately. I have reason to understand that the Office of the Attorney General has been looking through historical emails, particularly my einails (id, at 13.) 19. Although Judge Carpenter likely took Fina’s comments to refer to a concern about being the target of public criticism over his performance in the OAG, in fact Fina and Costanzo had a far more serious basis for their concern. The OAG email review eventually led to the discovery and public disclosure of pornographic, racist, misogynistic and homophobic emails from the government email files of numerous members of the OAG and other Pennsylvania public officials. That public disclosure has forced many of those officials from public office,’ and, when it was finally revealed that Fina and Costanzo had themselves received (and, in Fina’s case, also sent) such pornography,” both faced public demands for their removal from the District Attorney’s Office.'' Articles reporting on those public demands for removal ° See. e.., Associated Press, “2nd top Pa. judge resigns over porn email sca CBSNews.com, Mar. 15, 2016, http://www.chsnews.com/news/pennsylvania-judge-michael- eakin-resi il-scandal; Wallace McKelvey, “Porn email scandal forces resignation of Pa, fraud investigator,” PennLive.com, Aug. 28, 2015, http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2015/08/kane_porn_email_resignations.html. ' Mary Wilson, “Court Releases Pornographic Emails Kane Wanted Public,” WKSGnews.com, Aug. 26, 2015, http://wskgnews.org/post/court-releases-pornographic-emails-kane-wanted- public#stream/0 (“The court also unsealed a selection of the pornographic e-mails Kane’s office uncovered, revealing Fina and Costanzo among the messages senders and recipients.”). " See. e.g., Joel Mathis, “Why Doesn’t Frank Fina Quit?” PhillyMag.com, Dec. 9, 2015, at ‘http://www phillymag.com/news/2015/12/09/frank-fina-quit-resign/; Tricia Nadolny, “Philadelphia DA reassigns prosecutors caught up in Porngate,” The Moming Call, Dec. 4, 2015, http://www.meall.com/news/nationworld/pennsylvania/me-pa-pomgate-philly-prosecutors- reassigned-20151204-story. html (referencing “repeated calls” for Fina and Costanzo’s resignation due to the porngate scandal); Ernest Owens, “Councilwomen call for resignation of city prosecutors tied to Porngate,” Metro, Nov. 12, 2015, at http://www. metro.us/philadelphia/councilwomen-call-for-resignation-of-city-prosecutors-tied-to- 8included graphic descriptions of some of the emails, including: “a 32-image pictorial circulated by Fina entitled ‘Blonde Banana Split’ [that] shows two women inserting bananas into their vaginas and anuses”;'? a 2009 email that Fina sent to his colleagues entitled “FW: New Office Motivation Pol yy Posters” “containing images with a nid theme of women sexually pleasing their bosses;”"? and, an email where “Fina indicated his favorite image was of a woman in a rainbow thong, with a caption ‘underneath stating: ‘Rainbows: Not as Gay as You Might Think.’*"* 20. Judge Carpenter would have known none of this as he listened to Fina’s and ‘Costanzo’s presentation, but these two Philadelphia County Assistant District ‘Attomeys surely knew what their own email correspondence contained and surely recognized the threat to their careers and their reputations that Attorney General Kane's investigation of that correspondence posed. 21. Unaware of this personal reason for animosity by Fina and Costanzo towards Attorney General Kane, Judge Carpenter followed F criminal investigati m. 22. Thus, on May 29, 2014, Judge Carpenter appointed Thomas Carluccio as Special Prosecutor and auth« «d his investigation into an alleged grand jury leak, (Exhibit , Order Appointing Special Prosecutor, May 29, 2014, at 2.) porngate/zsJokl---YKb6laFaHelmY/ (referencing petition launched by group of Philadelphia Couneilwomen calling for resignation of Fina and Costanzo). "2. Tim Cwiek, “NOW Urges Firing of D.A. Staffers in Porn Ring,” EI http://www.epgn.com/news/local/9403-now-urges-firing-of-d-a-staffers ' David Gambacorta and William Bender, “Fina plays central role in scandal Call, Oct. 1, 2015, http://www.meall.com/news/nationworld/pennsylvania/mi email-frank-fina-20151001-story-html. “* Cwiek, “NOW Urges Firing of D.A. Staffers in Porn Ring. 9 s,” The Morning pa-kane-porn-23. That investigation resulted in the grand jury report, a subsequent referral to the Montgomery County District Attorney, and, eventually, the criminal charges lodged against Attorney General Kane in this case. 24, The charges in this case must be quashed because Attorney General Kane was the vietim of selective and vindictive prosecution. 25. First, others who are similarly situated are not generally prosecuted for similar alleged conduct. As detailed below, leaks of grand jury information have occurred repeatedly in recent high-profile Pennsylvania cases ~ including two of Frank Fina’s ‘own cases; none of these other leaks appear to have resulted even in a grand jury investigation, and certainly none have led to a criminal prosecution, as here. 26. Second, Attomey General Kane was targeted for investigation and prosecution for an invidious reason. Specifically, the timing and circumstances of Fina’s and Costanzo’s actions, and Fina’s statements, all support the inference that ADA Fina and ADA Costanzo instituted the Special Prosecutor’s criminal investigation in an effort to retaliate against Attomey General Kane for exercising her First Amendment rights and for actions she took while carrying out the lawful duties of her elected office. 27. The first prong of the selective or vindictive prosecution standard is easily satisfied in this case, as “others who are similarly situated to the defendant are not generally prosecuted for similar [alleged] conduct.” 28, Defense counsel has been able to identify only one Pennsylvania case — from eleven “years ago ~ in which an individual was prosecuted in connection with a grand jury leak. (See In re County Investigating Grand Jury VIII, No. 03 Mise. 140, 2005 WL 103985351 (Pa. Com. PI. Lackawanna Cty. Oct. 25, 2005).) According to defense counsel’s research, there has not been a single reported case of a criminal prosecution for an alleged violation of Pennsylvania’s Criminal History Record Information Act (CHRIA) ~ before the instant prosecution of Attomey General Kane. Indeed, a ‘Westlaw search reveals no reported decisions at all of Pennsylvania state court prosecutions for violations of CHRIA for the past 25 years." 29. But while such prosecutions are virtually unheard of, leaks of grand jury information are not. Indeed, and as discussed below, there have been numerous recent leaks of grand jury information in Pennsylvania and, as far as the public record reveals, none of these other leaks has led to a grand jury investigation, much less to a criminal prosecution. 30. For example, during the grand jury investigation into Jerry Sandusky, the very charges against the defendant were posted to the state court website while they were .! As mentioned earlier, the lead prosecutor on the Sandusky case was Frank Fina, However, there is no indication in the public record that Fina or any other prosecutor convened an investigating grand jury to examine that leak, and no one has been criminally prosecuted for it. Similarly, during the “Bonusgate” scandal, a partial transcript of grand jury testimony was leaked to the 'S For instance, a search across the Westlaw database for all Pennsylvania criminal cases with “violat! in the same sentence as “Criminal History Record Information Act” yields no hits for actual prosecutions under CHRIA, ‘© Sarah Ganim, “Attorney General to investigate early release of Sandusky charges as grand jury probe continues,” The Patriot News, Nov. 5, 2011 http://www. pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/201 1/1 1/ag_to_investigate_early_releas.html u31 32, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.'” Once again, there is no public indication that any investigation of this incident ever occurred and, once again, no one has been prosecuted for the leak. Even the March 17, 2014 Philadelphia Inquirer article that, according to the Complaint in this case (August 6, 2015 Complaint, Affidavit of Probable Cause, at 2), served as the alleged “motive” for Attomey General Kane to release grand jury information contained multiple leaked facts from the Tyron Ali grand jury investigation. For example, that article reports such potentially disparaging facts as: “[fJour state lawmakers took money. ... State Rep. Ronald G. Waters accepted multiple payments totaling $7,650; State Rep. Vanessa Brown took $4,000; State Rep. Michelle Brownlee received $3,500; and State Rep. Louise Bishop took $1,500, said people with knowledge of the investigation.”"® Fina supervised the Ali investigation, but there is no evidence that he brought these leaks to the attention of a supervising judge in an effort to start an investigation and prosecution, as he did here. ‘And, again in contrast to the treatment of Attorney General Kane in this case, no one has been prosecuted for the Ali leaks. In short, although there have been leaks of grand jury information in other recent, high-profile cases, only Attorney General Kane has been prosecuted. Even when there were grand jury leaks in two of Fina’s own cases, there is no evidence that he "Tracie Mauriello and Dennis B. Roddy, “Stetler aide links former lawmaker to Bonusgate,” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, June 19, 2009, http://www. post- gazette.com/news/state/2009/06/19/Stetler-aide-links-former-lawmaker-to- Bonusgate/stories/200906190180. '§ Angela Couloumbis and Craig R. McCoy, “Kane shut down sting that snared Phila. Officials,” Philadelphia Inquirer, Mar. 17, 2014, http://articles.philly.com/2014-03- 17/news/48269239_1_investigation-kane-ali 1233. 34. ever referred those leaks to a supervising judge or recommended a criminal investigation. Among similarly situated individuals, Attorney General Kane stands alone. ‘The second prong of the selective or vindictive prosecution standard is also satisfied in this case, as the evidence strongly supports the inference that Attomey General Kane was intentionally and purposefully singled out for investigation and prosecution for an invidious reason. In particular, the timing and circumstances of Fina’s and Costanzo’s actions, and Fina’s statements, all suggest that these Assistant District Attomeys targeted Attorney General Kane because she had openly and publicly ctiticized their work on the Sandusky and Tyron Ali cases, and because she had made public statements and taken actions reflecting poorly on their professional accomplishments and reputation. In effect, she was targeted because she had exercised her lawful duties as Attorney General and her First Amendment rights to make public statements about Fina’s performance. ‘An individual has a constitutionally protected right to hold elected office and to carry out the lawful duties of that office. The lawful duties of Attomey General Kane’s office include the review of past OAG prosecutions to determine if misconduct occurred (Sandusky), the decision to discontinue an investigation (Ali) and the communication to the public of the reasons for her decisions. Because the evidence points to the conclusion that ADA Fina initiated the criminal investigation of ‘Attorney General Kane because of his antagonism against her due to her exercise of these lawful rights, the charges against her must be dismissed.35. Here, as in the case law cited in Attorney General Kane’s Memorandum of Law, “the proximity in time” between, on the one hand, (a) Attomey General Kane’s public criticism of Fina’s and Costanzo’s work; (b) the “outrage” expressed by the Sandusky prosecutors and their threat that ‘If they come after us, we're coming out publiely;? (©) Fina’s op-ed piece (demonstrating his personal indignation about Kane’s statements and actions in relation to the Tyron Ali case); and, on the other hand, Fina’s and Costanzo’s report to Judge Carpenter of allegedly leaked grand jury documents, and Fina’s supposition that it must have involved Attorney General Kane and OAG, “has a suspicious air,” to say the least 36. Also “suspicious” is Fina’s statement that he believed it was his “duty” to report a leak in this five-year-old closed case. (See Exhibit A at 4.) When sensitive grand jury information was leaked in the highly-publicized Sandusky case (on which Fina was the lead prosecutor), and again in the Tyron Ali case (on which Fina was also the ead prosecutor), he apparently felt no similar “duty,” as there is no evidence that he ever referred those leaks to the supervising judge and, indeed, no one has been criminally charged for those disclosures. 37. In sum, the evidence indicates that, in response to harsh and ongoing criticism of their professional accomplishments, and concerned about the potential consequences of an ‘email review that would eventually disclose their pornographic emails and lead to calls for their resignation, ADA Fina and ADA Costanzo singled out Attorney General Kane for investigation and prosecution. Such selective and vindictive prosecution is unconstitutional, and, as a result, the charges in this case should be quashed in their entirety 1438. Attomey General Kane requests the Relief Requested missal of all charges with prejudice. 39. To the extent that the Commonwealth disputes material facts, Attorney General Kane requests an evidentiary hearing, Dated: New York, New York May 25, 2016 Winston & Strawn LLP Crt Shartyh pe sae Gerald L. Shargel, Esq. Seth C. Farber, Esq. Ross M. Kramer, Esq. Attomeys Pro Hac Vice for Attorney General Kathleen G. Kane Minora, Minora, Cothassani, Krowiak, Mattioli & Munley Amil M. Minora, Esq. Attomey for Attorney General Kathleen G. Kane Attorney ID: 22703 15VERIFICATION I, Ross M. Kramer, hereby depose and state that: (a) I am an attorney at Winston & Strawn LLP located at 200 Park Avenue in New York, NY, admitted pro hac vice in this case as counsel for the defendant; (b) I have reviewed the foregoing Motion; and (c) the facts contained therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that the statements made herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Gl. Ross M. Kramer, Bsq 16CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE hereby certify that I am this day serving Attomey General Kathleen G. Kane’s Motion to Quash Based on Selective and Vindictive Prosecution upon the person and in the manner indicated below. The manner of service satisfies the requirements of Pa.R.Crim.P. 575. Service by Federal Express: ‘Thomas MeGoldrick (610) 278-3126 Chief, Trials Division Montgomery County District Attorney's Office P.O. Box 311 Norristown, PA 19404 TMeGoldri@monteopa.org (Attomey for the Commonwealth) Dated: New York, New York May 25, 2016 MA Ross M. Kramer Winston & Strawn LLP 200 Park Ave. ‘New York, NY 10166 (212) 294-2628Exhibit ACONFERENCE HELD IN CHAMBERS MONDAY, MAY 12, 2014 9:30 A.M. OY 00915,10 ql 12 13 14 15 16 a7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (The following conference was held in the judicial chambers with the Court, Marc Costanzo, Esquire, and Frank Fina, Esquire, being present:) MR. COSTANZO: I am Marc Costanzo, I'm currently an Assistant District Attorney in Philadelphia County, formally a Deputy Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. MR. FINA: Frank Fina, also currently an Assistant District Attorney in Philadelphia County and formally Chief Deputy Attorney General with the Office of Attorney General Your Honor, we are present, unfortunately I don't remember the notice number or even the grand jury, but it is regarding a matter that was under investigation in 2009 before the grand jury that was then sitting in Norristown, Pennsylvania. What has brought us here today is phone calls that both Mr. Costanzo and I received last Wednesday from a reporter named Christopher Brennan with the Philadelphia Daily News. He called us separately. We later determined, in talking to a former co-worker of ours, William Davis, who had been 009162 10 aL 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 a Deputy Attorney General also in 2009 with the Office of Attorney General, that he had also been called by Christopher Brennan. I'll speak about the call I had with Mr. Brennan and let Mr. Costanzo talk about his phone call. I had been in court Wednesday When I returned from court sometime after 4:00 I checked my messages in my office in the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office and there was a message on there from a reporter who I have never spoken to before and have no familiarity with. He says his name is Christopher Brennan with the Philadelphia Daily News, and he left on the message that he was calling about a specific document that he had in his possession regarding Jerome Mondesire, who had been for many, many years the head of the NAACP in Philadelphia, Your Honor. He left his number and said that he needed to talk to me about this matter. It's not my standard habit to call reporters back, but in this case, having some recollection of the investigation in which Mr. Mondesire's name had appeared, and knowing that nothing regarding Mr. Mondesire in that investigation 00091710 a 12 13 14 15 16 a7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 had ever been made public or been released from the ambit of grand jury secrecy, I did call Mr, Brennan back at approximately 5:00, 5:15 on Wednesday He relayed to me that he had a 2009 e-mail which contained, either as an attachment or as part of the text -- that wasn't clear to me Your Honor -- a four to five page memorandum detailing extensively the grand jury investigation that had been conducted up to that point by Mr. Davis, and Mr. Costanzo had also been a part of that investigation. He actually read to me portions of the document. It detailed extensively an investigation that had been conducted into a nonprofit in Philadelphia County that had been run by a woman named Harriet Garrett. Miss Garrett had subsequently been charged, Your Honor, as a result of that grand jury investigation As part of that investigation in reviewing the financial records of the nonprofit and some other evidence, Jerome Mondesire's name had appeared as a result of some monies he had received from that nonprofit. And there was, again, detailed information in that memorandum about Mr. Mondesire his relationship with the nonprofit, and questions 0001810 il 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 that had been raised regarding the legality of his conduct in taking money from the nonprofit. I asked Mr. Brennan specifically if he had this document in his possession. He said he did. I asked him what was the form? He said it was an e-mail. I asked him who was on the e-mail in terms of recipients and senders. He said it was an e-mail only between myself -- it was an e-mail received by me from Mr. Davis, and Mr. Costanzo was c.c.'d, and that nobody else appeared on this e-mail. I then instructed Mr. Brennan that there was a significant problem with his possession of the e-mail, I said to him that I was not going to give him an opinion as to the legality of his situation possessing the e-mail, but that I could assure him that the individual who had provided him with this e-mail in all likelihood had committed a crime, possibly even a felony. That this was grand jury information. It is subject to the strictures of secrecy under the Grand Jury Act and the Rules of Criminal Procedure and rather extensive case law. I told him that I believed it was my duty to report this, that he was in possession of this. He said he understood. He seemed to become 0091910 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 a little bit nervous. He mentioned to me something about the case agent on the case, who was an individual named Michael Miletto. He said, Well, Mr. Miletto has already been questioned about this by the Office of Attorney General. I said, Questioned about what? He said questioned about this case and what happened with Mondesire, and everybody wants to know why Mondesire wasn't charged, he said something to that effect. And I said, This again I'm not going to confirm or deny anything in regards to this. It's grand jury information and I will need to report it. Subsequent to that I spoke to Mr. Costanzo and Mr. Davis about this, who had also ended up talking to Mr. Brennan I have no hesitation, Your Honor, going under oath or expressing in any manner that I did not disclose this document. TI do not have possession of this document. I have not seen this document since 2009. I will also just state, Your Honor, that in my personal opinion it's not possible that Mr. Costanzo or Mr. Davis would disclose this document, either. THE COURT: Did you report it anywhere other than here? 0092010 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2. 22 23 24 25 MR. FINA: I have not, Your Honor; other than I did tell the District Attorney of Philadelphia County that I would be reporting it here because I felt that was the prudent thing to do. MR. COSTANZO: Your Honor, I had a brief conversation with Mr. Brennan. I actually picked up the phone, it was earlier in the afternoon on the same day, probably closer to 3:00 or 3:30. He identified himself as Chris Brennan, and I think that's the name he uses when he does a column. I've heard of him. I may have spoken to him over the many years of my career.’ I can't remember specifically ever doing so. He identified himself. He told me that he wanted to speak to me about a case that T may have been involved with and he had some questions about an e-mail that he possessed, and specifically he wanted to know why Jerome Mondesire was not charged in a particular case and what happened with a particular case. I quickly was alerted to my recollection of the case. Frankly, Your Honor because there have been recent allegations about Mr. Mondesire in the newspapers, where there has been ‘00092110 aL 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 au 22 23 24 25 a very open civil war in the NAACP in the Philadelphia branch, where several older board members have made accusations against Mr. Mondesire to the point where they, I think, filed suit. They are represented by an attorney whose last name is Egan; I can't remember his first name. I know that Mr. Egan sent letters both to the District Attorney of Philadelphia County and to the Attorney General, probably in the last couple months, alerting both law enforcement entities of possible misuse of funds at the NAACP by Mr. Mondesire and requesting some sort of inquiry. I was aware that that request was in our office in Philadelphia County. So I quickly was very familiar with my recollection of the case. I was not the assigned attorney I was the senior attorney in the Norristown office Mr. Davis worked with me. Mr. Davis was assigned that investigation. It did lead to charges against Harriet Garrett and her daughter for perjury THE COURT: Is anything pending? Is that case now closed? MR. COSTANZO: That underlying prosecution is closed and the actual case file in the office was closed before my departure. I departed in 0092210 qi 12 13 14 is 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 January of 2013. I've had no contact with the case. Frankly, I was c.c.'d on the e-mail. The three of us were aware of the e-mail, because basically the three of us spoke on the telephone about the current status of the case and various information that was coming out in grand jury And it was Mr. Fina's suggestion to me and Mr. Davis that he put a status summary together and send it to him in Harrisburg so he could do whatever he felt was appropriate with that information. I was c.c.'d because technically I was between the two in the chain of the command. So this was not an e-mail basically alerting Mr. Fina to something he didn't know. It was something we had all already spoken about, and this was at the request of Mr. Fina to put it in the form of a written document so that he would have it in hand in Harrisburg. So I had a recollection that some sort of notice went up to Harrisburg. I didn't remember if was an e-mail or a memo. T didn't necessarily remember the contents of it, but I know that it was a status memo. According to Mr. Brennan, he said it was four or so pages long. ‘The first half had 082310 it 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to do with information about Miss Garrett. The second half had to do with information with regard to Mr. Mondesire. 1 told him very quickly, I said, That's grand jury information. It's not something I can talk to or anybody else can speak to. He said Well, I understand it's a closed case. Can't you talk about it now? And I said, No; the grand jury secrecy provisions provide for secrecy in perpetuity. So it doesn't matter if the case is open or closed, it's not something we can ever comment on, and frankly, it's not something you should probably be possessing. I said, I don't know how you got it, but you shouldn't have it and it may be illegal for you to have received it from somebody. So I left it at that. I later heard in the afternoon from Mr. Davis that he had received a similar call He gave a similar response that it was not something he could speak about, that it was grand jury, and left it at that. I spoke later Friday night with Mr. Davis, of last week, after we sent the letter to Your Honor and Your Honor set up a meeting with me for today, and I asked Mr. Davis if he was available to come today so that he could go on the record as well. 0002410 at 12 13 a4 15 16 17 18 19 20 2l 22 23 24 25 10 He was interested in doing so. Unfortunately, he wanted me to report to the Court that he is due in Media in Common Pleas Court. He is there. He'd be happy to address the Court in any way, shape or form in the future. He has told me that he's never had possession of that e-mail and, of course, would never have released it to anybody; doesn't know this reporter and never spoke to him before. Mr. Davis also indicated, if need be, he would be available by telephone today if Your Honor had any interest in hearing from him. And that's my last contact with it, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right then. What are you requesting the Court do, if anything? MR. FINA: Your Honor, our concern, our immediate concern, and it certainly hasn't changed since last Wednesday, this is a document that would not have been provided in discovery in the prosecution of Miss Garrett or her daughter. This is an internal document that, at least to our minds, clearly contains grand jury information As in a great many investigations we have conducted over the years, we encounter lots of information, some of it 0092510 a. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 11 unfortunately unsavory about individuals who end up not being charged. As this Court well knows, one of the fundamental tenets of grand jury secrecy, especially in an investigating grand jury as opposed to an indicting grand jury, is that those matters if not otherwise disclosed in furtherance of an appropriate prosecution or grand jury report are to remain sealed in perpetuity. Again, as this Court well knows, the Rust Proof case is probably the penultimate example of that. This information about Mr. Mondesire is information that would certainly adversely affect his reputation if disclosed publicly. and maybe worse, so we just felt it was important to disclose it to the Court. In the past -- and I'm not trying to be presumptuous here, I'm just reciting history -- in the past, when there have been potential grand jury leaks, grand jury judges have conducted under their authority as supervising judges, as is explained with some clarity, I think, in the court order from the Chief Justice appointing the supervising judge, the supervising judge has really absolute jurisdiction to look into any potential 0002610 a. 12 13 14 1s 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 12 breaches in secrecy and determine what, if anything happened and whether it is a criminal violation of the Grand Jury Act. I have conducted some of these reviews when I was in the Attorney General's Office on behalf of different supervising judges. I did it for Judge Garb. I also did it for Judge Feudale and a judge in Pittsburgh once. Courts have handled it differently, Your Honor. Judge Garb on one occasion appointed an independent prosecutor, answerable only to him, somebody from outside the A.G.'s Office, and that person looked into an alleged secrecy breach That ended up resulting in an agent with the Office of the Attorney General being identified as the breach some years later, and that person was actually prosecuted for it and went to jail. I'm not suggesting ~- I don't know what happened here, Your Honor, but I do know from everything that I'm aware of is this document contained grand jury information. This document, as far as I'm aware, only existed on a historical database somewhere in the Attorney General's Office Who is looking through those historical e-mails I am not aware specifically, but it has now apparently been near10 ql 12 13 14 41s 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 13 handed out to the media. THE COURT: And you have not contacted the Attorney General about this, I trust? MR. FINA: I have not, Your Honor. THE COURT: What is the reasoning, if you don't mind? MR. FINA: Because I'm not sure who may be involved in this disclosure, Your Honor. I'm anxious not to mix apples and oranges. I know we are certainly feeling like a couple of ten-point bucks in the first week of deer season lately. I have reason to understand that the Office of Attorney General has been looking through historical e-mails, particularly my e-mails. So I don't know where this document was released from, Your Honor. THE COURT: Anything further? MR. COSTANZO: I have nothing, Your Honor. THE COURT: I'm wondering if I should have this transcribed under seal and reviewed by Mr. Jim Baker of the Attorney General's Office. Do you have any thoughts there? He's in charge of the 0082810 al 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2l 22 23 24 25 14 grand jury, as I understand it. MR. FINA: Yes, Your Honor. Mr Barker was actually put in that position while I was with the office. THE COURT: Or do you think this is the Garb situation? MR. FINA: Your Honor, I don't know. I think that it would be a safe assumption that if you were to disclose this to Mr. Barker, he would have an obligation to disclose it to his command. T think that is just a situation you would have to bear in mind. I'm not in any way questioning Mr. Barker's integrity. THE COURT: Right. I understand that. MR. FINA: I would be shocked beyond question -- THE COURT: What you are saying is, it would appear, without any firm basis for knowledge, that it probably was leaked from within the Attorney General's Office. That is what you would suspect. MR. FINA: Your Honor, again I 00092910 ai 12 13 14 1s 16 aq 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 15 don't see any other reasonable explanation at this time. THE COURT: Because it wasn't in discovery. It wasn't otherwise disclosed in the prosecution. And your shaking your head yes? MR. FINA: Yes, Your Honor. This was an entirely internal memo that I don't know at the end of the day whether there were even a sum total of five people who may have laid eyes on it. I would have showed -- and I don't have a specific recollection of this -~ but in normal practices, when I would ask for a memo like this, it would be because I would show it to my supervisor, who was Richard Sheetz. Again, Your Honor, Richard Sheetz does not have copies of these THE COURT: And the timing of where we are with all of this is, I don't even remember the name of the controversy that the Inquirer has been exploring between Attorney General Kane and the uncharged people in Philadelphia. What would you call that investigation? You were in charge of it. MR. FINA: It was called The Undercover Lobbyist Investigation, was the formal 0093010 ul 12 13 14 15 16 ay 18 19 20 2i 22 23 24 25 16 title in the Attorney General's Office. THE COURT: ‘That still is churning, so to speak. Isn't it in the news to some extent? MR. FINA: It is, Your Honor. And that's what I was referring to earlier when I said apples and oranges. THE COURT: And Sandusky is still churning to some extent. MR. FINA: Unfortunately. THE COURT: Do you think that some aspect of what we are talking about is going to end up in the newspapers in the near future? Is that your sense from talking with that reporter? MR. COSTANZO: That's an interesting question, Your Honor. I know Mr. Fina more than I, but we both got the impression that Brennan was about to go with the story. And I think he specifically said that to Mr. Fina, but I think during the conversation with Fina he seemed to get a little nervous and said that he needed to bring this to the attention of his editors. Now it's been several days and there's been no ~~ THE COURT: Because you both 0003110 aL 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 17 cautioned him that it was grand jury material and possibly a problem. MR. FINA: We are hoping, Your Honor, that has caused them considerable pause and will prevent them from running a story on this; although, investing in the good will of the media is a rather risky venture. But to date there has been no story. And again, Your Honor, to be totally candid, it is profoundly my deepest hope, and I know Mr. Costanzo's as well, that there is some rational explanation for this and that this is not part of an act of vengeance or an act of criminality by anybody in the Office of the Attorney General. I'm really not just saying this We have the deepest fondness for that office as an entity and have not sought conflict at any point with that office or its members. Now, when the sword gets drawn, we fight back. But this is not part of that in any way, shape or form. And I hope, indeed, it's not part of it from the other side as well, but the facts as they currently appear to us don't add up particularly well in terms of where this information must have come from. It seems to me that it had to 0002210 a1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 au 22 23 24 25 come from the Office of the Attorney General, what I know at this time. know, Your Honor. further? Honor. We appreciate sealed. is concluded.) 18 based on Now who and why, I don't THE COURT: All right. Anything MR. COSTANZO: No, sir. MR. FINA: No, sir. THE COURT: Thank you very much. MR. COSTANZO: Thank you, Your your time. THE COURT: This matter is (At 10:00 a.m., the conference og19 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the proceedings and evidence are contained fully and accurately in the notes taken by me in the above cause and that this is a correct transcript of the same. MEGAN McCARTIN, R.P.R. Official Court Reporter 000934Exhibit BDISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE THREE SOUTH PENN SQUARE PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19107-3499 (218) 686-8000 SETH WILLIAMS DISTRICT ATTORNEY May 8, 2014 Honorable William R. Carpenter Supervising Judge Statewide Grand Jury Montgomery County Courthouse 2 East Airy Street Norristown, PA 19404 Via fax (610)-278-5192 and US. Mail RE: — Grand Jury Information Dear Judge Carpenter: We are providing this correspondence to report the release of Grand Jury information. Yesterday, the undersigned were separately contacted by an individual who represented himself as Chris Brennan, “a reporter with the Philadelphia Dally News". He stated that he was in possession of a 2008 email between Frank Fina, Marc Costanzo and William Oavis. At the time, Frank Fina was Chief Deputy Attorney General for the Criminal Prosecutions section of the Attorney General's Office and Marc Costanzo and William Davis were prosecutors in that section. The email contained a lengthy review of the evidence and testimony from a Statewide Grand Jury investigation being conducted at the time. As part of that investigation, information derived from the Grand Jury - about a certain prominent individual who was never charged — was detailed in this internal email. We are hesitant to detail this information in a correspondence but will gladly do so in person. We can represent to the Court that the ‘email contained extensive evidence and information that clearly fall within the ambit of Grand Jury secrecy. The reporter stated that he had a copy of the email and he even recited from it when questioned about the contents. The reporter also stated that the email was only between Fina, Davis and Costanzo. We can assure the Court that none of us disclosed this email, We were subsequently called by William Davis, now in private practice in Delaware County, who relayed that he too had been called by Brennan about this email. All three of us, separately, informed Brennan that he possessed secret Grand Jury information and that whoever gave it to him had likely committed a serious crime. We are also certain that, as individuals who continue to be sworn to secrecy before the Grand Jury in question, we have an obligation to disclose this apparent breach of secrecy to the current Supervising Judge. ‘00012We are available, at the Court's discretion, to provide further details and answer any questions regarding this matter. We would prefer to do so on the record in camera, but obviously defer to the Court in this regard. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Edward MeCann William Davis, Esquire 00933 Sincerely, ‘ E. Marc Costanzo Chief Assistant District Attorney Bod Frank G. Fina Assistant District Attorney First Assistant District Attorney, Philadelphia District Attorney's OfficeFina, S10 DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ‘THREE SOUTH PENN SQUARE PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19107-3499 Honorable iam R. Carpenter ‘Supervising Judge Statewide Grand Jury 2EastAiry Street 24. Bo¥S)/ Norristown, PA 19404Exhibit CIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. MONTGOMERY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA IN RE: Pp pa2d- 2014 ‘THE STATEWIDE : “ : MONTGOMERY COUNTY COMMON PLEAS INVESTIGATING GRAND JURIES ‘ ities of In Re: Powers and Responsi Special Prosecutor Exercising Extraordinary Jurisdiction; on Allegations that Secret Grand Jury or Related Information was Unlawfully.and/or Negligently Accessed/Released/Compromised SEALING ORDER. AND NOW, this 29th day of May, 2014, it is hereby ORDERED, that the attached Order of May 29, 2014 be filed under seal. with the Clerk of Courts of Montgomery. County until further Order of this Court. ae 3S aN BY THE COURT: wer WILLIAM R. CARP! Supervising Judge Bg = 2 = 3 rm oe 6 25 = =x $3 es Bg < True and correct Copy — Certified from the record This.: . Lan. Asrnbrang. bei, Clerkof GaurtsIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS MONTGOMERY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA IN RE: THE STATEWIDE : * : MONTGOMERY COUNTY COMMON PLEAS INVESTIGATING GRAND JURIES “ In Re: Powers and Responsibilities of Special Prosecutor Exercising : Extraordinary Jurisdiction; on Allegations that : Secret Grand Jury or Related Information was : Unlawfully and/or Negligently : Accessed/Released/Compromised ORDER AND NOW, this 29th day of May, 2014, after “preliminary investigation”; this court in its capacity as Supervising Judge of the 35" Statewide Investigating Grand Jury, finds there are reasonable grounds to believe a farther more substantive investigation is warranted into allegations that statewide Grand Jury secrecy may have been compromised: It is therefore ORDERED and DIRECTED by this Court in accordance with the authority vested in it by the 1078 Pennsylvania Investigating Grand Jury Act of 1978, 42 Pa. C.S. § 4541, et seg. and the procedural rules that followed (Pa.R.Crim.P 220, et seq.) as well as relevant case law; that THOMAS E. CARLUCCIO, ESQUIRE, be and is hereby appointed Special Prosecutor with full power, independent authority and jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute to the maximum extent authorized by law any offenses related to . any alleged illegal disclosure of information protected by the law and/or intentional and/or “negligent violations and rules of Grand Jury secrecy as to a former Statewide Investigating Grand Jury, such as; 1. 42 Pa. C.S. § 4549(b) Disclosure of proceedings by participants other than “witnesses...”all such persons shall be sworn té"secrecy, and shall be in contempt of court if they disclose/reveal any information which they are sworn to keep secret.” 18 Pa. CS. § 5101 Obstructing administration of law or other governmental function — “a person commits a misdemeanor of the second degree if he intentionally obstructs, impairs or perverts the administration of law or other governmental function by force, violence, physical interference or obstacle, breach of official duty. 3. Any other applicable offense It is FURTHER ORDERED by the Court that the Special Prosecutor: 1. Shall use any appropriate currently empaneled Grand Jury to investigate any alleged or suspected violations of secrecy or concomitant crimes related to such. 2. Shall have the right to request an application for an immunity order from the Attorney General. 3. Shall have the right to employ all appropriate resources including a minimum of one investigator and if necessary, one support staff.4, Shall have day-to-day independence and will be free to structure the investigation as he wishes and to exercise independent prosecutorial discretion whether, which and when any potential witness should be brought before the Grand Juity. and/or whether, which and when chargés. should be brought, including contempt of court. 5. Shall be permitted, while serving as Special Prosecutor, to consult with past and present members of the Office of Attorney General and take such action as is necessary to ensure that matters he is investigating and/or prosecuting in his role as Special Prosecutor are brought to a successful conclusion, so long as such consultation/action does not present a conflict of interest with his duties as Special Prosecutor and/or violate the secrecy oath. 6. Shall be empowered to respond to interference with his investigation by also having authority to investigate and prosecute crimes committed in the course of, and with the intent to interfere with the Special Prosecution’s investigation such as Perjury, Intimidation of witnesses and other applicable and relevant violations of the law. 7. Shall comply with all relevant statutory and case Jaw as well as all applicable canons of ethics. 8. Shall be removed from the-position of Special Prosecutor only by the personal action of the Grand Jury Judge and/or the Pa Supreme Court.9. Shall be appointed for a period not to exceed six months from today, unless the Special Prosecutor makes a written request to the Court for an extension setting forth the reasons for the extension. 10.The Special Prosecutor shall be compensated at the rate of $65.00°an hour to be paid by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The investigator/support staff chosen by the Special Prosecutor shall be compensated at the rate of $20.00 an hour. All those seeking compensation shall keep detailed records of time and services rendered. All shall provide the Supervising Grand Jury Judge with a monthly accounting of time/services rendered. 11.Shall provide the Supervising Grand Jury Judge with periodic summaries of any progress. 12.Submit a report addressed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and the Supervising Grand Jury Judge, setting forth any findings and recommendations on any proposed statutory, rulemaking or recommended practices that would preserve the critical requirement of secrecy in Grand Jury proceedings as well as insuring the rights of defendants to a fair trial and maintaining the integrity of our Grand Juries.BY THE COURT: QAR WILLIAM R. CARPEN’ Supérvising Judge Copies sent on May 29, 2014 By First Class Mail to: Chief Justice Ronald D, Castille Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen G, Kane ‘Thomas E. Carluccio, Esquire