Inquirer, other newspapers oppose Kane bid for secrecy

Five news organizations, including the parent company of the Inquirer, the Daily News, and Philly.com, on Friday urged the judge in Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen G. Kane's upcoming criminal trial to reject her request to file a key defense argument in secret.

Kane has asked Montgomery County Court Judge Wendy Demchick-Alloy to permit her to file under seal a brief contending that she is the victim of a "selective and vindictive" prosecution.

If her request is granted, her argument could be read only by the judge and Kane's prosecutors, not by the public.

"The First Amendment requires that the public witness the extraordinary proceedings in this court that implicate the attorney general's fitness for her elected office and could indeed lead to her removal," the news organizations said in court papers.

William K. Marimow, editor of the Inquirer, said the Kane case was "a matter of the greatest public importance." He said ensuring that such a trial unfolded fully in public reflected "a core purpose of the First Amendment."

Joining Philadelphia Media Network in its request were the Allentown Morning Call, the Harrisburg Patriot-News, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, and the Legal Intelligencer.

Kane is scheduled to go on trial Aug. 8 on charges of perjury, official oppression, and other crimes. Authorities say she illegally leaked confidential information to plant a news story in a bid to embarrass a former state prosecutor and then lied about her actions under oath. She has pleaded not guilty.

Her lawyers have told Demchick-Alloy that Kane and legal team might be held in contempt if they file a public motion making the case that she had been vindictively targeted for prosecution.

They fear they might violate a protection order imposed by a Philadelphia judge, Diana Anhalt, who has been overseeing a grand jury investigation into a political corruption case. Anhalt's order bans retaliation against witnesses in that inquiry, which has recommended charges against six Philadelphia officials caught pocketing cash in an undercover sting operation.

Kane inherited the sting case when she took office, but shut it down without filing charges. Philadelphia prosecutors resurrected the investigation and put it before Anhalt's grand jury.

Many former or current staffers of the Attorney General's Office have been called as witnesses before the grand jury. Kane apparently would like to file a motion that is critical of some of those staffers, but is concerned that that could be viewed as violating the order against retaliation.

Kane's lawyer, Gerald L. Shargel, said in court papers filed March 18 that he agrees that the public has a right of access to judicial proceedings. But he said this right had to yield to Kane's "absolute right to present a viable defense."

However, Kaitlin M. Gurney and other lawyers representing the media companies say Kane's "confused and vague" argument fell short in making a case for a secret filing.

"If the attorney general's claim about selective prosecution is indeed true," Gurney wrote, "that is a critical piece of information reflecting on how Pennsylvania's government is operating that the public deserves to hear."

cmccoy@phillynews.com

215-854-4821

@CraigRMcCoy