Update 6:34pm

Press release sent at 4:56pm Tuesday. From Gerald L. Shargel, Partner at Winston & Strawn LLP, attorneys for Attorney General Kathleen Kane:

We are pleased with the Order issued today by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The Order permits the “appropriate public disclosure” of the “possibly pornographic images” that Attorney General Kane referenced in her recent public statement. We expect that appropriate public disclosure will occur in connection with the vigorous defense of the criminal charges that have been laid against her. These images and the emails to which they are attached are essential to demonstrating Attorney General Kane’s innocence, and the abject flaws in the District Attorney’s Affidavit of Probable Cause.

As a result of the Supreme Court’s Order, we no longer consider it necessary to move for relief before Judge William R. Carpenter.

It is our hope that the Supreme Court will soon rule that additional, related documents are also subject to appropriate public disclosure in connection with Attorney General Kane’s defense.

____________________________

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT

IN RE: THE THIRTY-FIVE STATEWIDE INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY : No. 175 MM 2014

PETITION OF: ATTORNEY GENERAL : KATHLEEN G. KANE

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 18th day of August, 2015, this Court’s order of December 19, 2014, is hereby UNSEALED.

_______________________

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 19th day of December, 2014, the Application to File under Seal is GRANTED, and the Application for Extraordinary Relief is DENIED.

This Court notes that, per the opinion of the Supervising Judge William R. Carpenter, the purpose of the protective order, entered per the authority of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4954, “was/is to prevent the intimidation, obstruction and/or retaliation, in the ordinary sense of those words . . . . [and] was never intended to prevent the [Office of Attorney General] from carrying out its constitutional duties.” Opinion, dated 12/12/2014, at 10- 11 (filed at 171 MM 2014). Additionally, as explained by Judge Carpenter, the protective order “is not intended to restrict or impact ‘appropriate public [disclosure]’ of information connected with the possession and/or distribution of possibly pornographic images by members of the [Office of Attorney General].” Id. at 11.

Mr. Justice Stevens notes his Dissent and would grant relief to the OAG in the Application except for that portion that relates to witness intimidation and would direct that this Order be filed in the normal course of Court business and publically available.

_______________________

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 19th day of December, 2014, the Application to File under Seal is GRANTED, and the Petition for Review is DENIED.

This Court notes that, per the opinion of the Supervising Judge William R. Carpenter, the purpose of the protective order, entered per the authority of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4954, “was/is to prevent the intimidation, obstruction and/or retaliation, in the ordinary sense of those words . . . . [and] was never intended to prevent the [Office of Attorney General] from carrying out its constitutional duties.” Opinion, dated 12/12/2014, at 10- 11. Additionally, as explained by Judge Carpenter, the protective order “is not intended to restrict or impact ‘appropriate public [disclosure]’ of information connected with the possession and/or distribution of possibly pornographic images by members of the [Office of Attorney General].” Id. at 11.

Mr. Justice Stevens notes his Dissent and would grant relief to the OAG in the Application except for that portion that relates to witness intimidation and would direct that this Order be filed in the normal course of Court business and publically available.

Photo/Natalie Cake January 15, 2013.