TodaySlots case offers a look inside process
Print
Share
Email to a friend
Add This
Feeds
Editorial
Article RatingSecrecy is considered an essential part of grand jury deliberations. These bodies are convened to serve an investigative function — to determine whether crimes have been committed and whether there is enough evidence to charge people in those crimes.
Not everyone whose name comes up in a grand jury proceeding will necessarily face charges, however, so the secrecy of these sessions acts to protect those people’s reputations. Secrecy also aids prosecutors in procuring truthful testimony, as too much discussion of the proceedings in public could lead to people coordinating their stories to protect each other or to implicate an innocent party.
There is one major loophole in grand jury secrecy, however. Witnesses are under no obligation to keep their testimony secret once they have given evidence to the grand jury. Such post-testimonial recollections offer the news media ample opportunity to cover grand juries while they are in session.
Nevertheless, it’s still possible to compromise grand jury secrecy in other ways. Officers of the court and the jurors themselves may not speak about the proceedings, but violations of those rules have been known to happen. Such malfeasance can throw a shadow over any indictments a grand jury returns.
Louis DeNaples, the recently indicted owner of the Mount Airy Resort Casino, clearly hopes to make his legal troubles go away by casting doubt on the grand jury process. Lawyers representing DeNaples have subpoenaed 15 reporters representing six state news organizations to appear in court as part of a state Supreme Court-ordered investigation into whether grand jury secrecy was violated.
News organizations typically guard their sources closely, and Pennsylvania does have a shield law that reporters can cite to protect their confidential sources from being identified. The court, however, does have an interest in determining whether those not authorized to speak outside the grand jury were, in fact, violating the law.
With the shield law in place, it’s unlikely that any information about violation of grand jury rules will come from reporters. The DeNaples team probably knows that already — but sending subpoenas to reporters does tend to generate headlines, and for their purposes that’s probably enough.
There’s no question the DeNaples case is generating intense interest across the commonwealth. It’s the first time that a player in the state’s nascent slot machine gambling business is being put on trial over allegations that he misrepresented himself to win a slots license.
There have been revelations that the state police had knowledge that DeNaples’ relationships with reputed mobsters could have disqualified him as a license holder. But because the slots law gave the Gaming Control Board control of investigations, there was no communication between the board and the state police.
Some of those who opposed the expansion of gambling in Pennsylvania equated it with the expansion of opportunities for official corruption, citing the sordid history of gambling in Atlantic City, where several mayors have had to step down over gambling-related corruption. But you don’t have to be a gambling opponent to believe that it’s way too soon for Pennsylvania’s first case of gambling-related malfeasance involving both a license holder and an arm of state government to reach court.
We hope that the current investigation does not reveal any improper action regarding the grand jury. A dismissal of the indictments would not necessarily prove DeNaples innocent, and it would deprive Pennsylvania of a proper airing of the procedures behind the granting of slots licenses.
And no matter the outcome, the trial could inspire legislation that would assure that, when investigating future license applicants, that Pennsylvania’s left hand is fully apprised of what its right hand is doing.
