Petition of Specter
| Decision Date | 24 January 1974 |
| Citation | 455 Pa. 518,317 A.2d 286 |
| Parties | Petition of Arien SPECTER, District Attorney of Philadelphia, Requesting a Grand Jury Investigation. Petition of Bernice ZAZOW. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
John Rogers Carroll, Robert E. Gabriel, Philadelphia, for petitioner.
Arlen Specter, Dist. Atty., David Richman, Asst. Dist. Atty., Philadelphia, for respondent.
Before JONES, C.J., and EAGEN, O'BRIEN, ROBERTS, POMEROY, NIX and MANDERINO, JJ.
The matter before us is a petition for writ of prohibition brought by Bernice Zazow, who seeks an order restraining the Honorable Harry A. Takiff, Supervising Judge of the Investigating Grand Jury of Philadelphia, from conducting proceedings in connection with a subpoena served upon petitioner.
Prior to the day scheduled for her appearance, petitioner filed a petition and motion to quash the subpoena, alleging, Inter alia, that:
(a) the subpoena issued to her (and the proposed questioning of her by the district attorney) was in some part based upon information gained from an interrogation of her conducted by an assistant district attorney in the absence of counsel and in the absence of warnings to her of her Miranda rights, and
(b) the subject matter of the proposed questioning of her was entirely beyond the scope of the convening petition and charge to the investigative grand jury.
On August 2, 1973, Judge Takiff denied petitioner's motion to quash. In lieu of complying with the court's order commanding her to appear to testify before the grand jury, petitioner then filed the petition for a writ of prohibition.
A stay of proceedings was subsequently granted, pending our determination of the petition.
It has long been the law that the denial of a motion to quash a grand jury subpoena is interlocutory and, therefore, not appealable. United States v. Ryan, 402 U.S. 530, 91 S.Ct. 1580, 29 L.Ed.2d 85 (1971), Cobbledick v. United States, 309 U.S. 323, 60 S.Ct. 540, 84 L.Ed. 783 (1939). Instead, the party subpoenaed must either comply with the subpoena or refuse to comply and litigate the propriety of the subpoena in the event that contempt or similar proceedings are brought against him. Forcing the party subpoenaed to make such a choice is justified by the 'necessity for expedition in the administration of the criminal law.' United States v. Ryan, Supra, 402 U.S. at 533, 91 S.Ct. at 1582. What the petitioner is not permitted to do by direct appeal, she is apparently attempting to do by a writ of prohibition.
The principles regulating the issuance of writs of prohibition were clearly set forth in Carpentertown Coal & Coke Co. v. Laird, 360 Pa. 94, at page 102, 61 A.2d 426 at page 430 (1948), where we said:
'The writ of prohibition is one which, like all other prerogative writs, is to be used only with great caution nd forbearance and as an extraordinary remedy in cases of extreme necessity, to secure order and regularily in judicial proceedings if none of the ordinary remedies provided by law is applicable or adequate to afford relief. It is a writ which is not of absolute right but rests largely in the sound discretion of the court. It will never be granted where there is a complete and effective remedy by appeal, certiorari, writ of error, injunction, or otherwise (citing cases). As pointed out in the last cited authority (United States Alkali Export Association, Inc. v. United States), 325 U.S. (196, 65 S.Ct. (1120) at page 1125 (89 L.Ed. 1554)) at page 203, 'appellate courts are reluctant to interfere with decisions of lower courts, even on jurisdictional questions, which they are competent to decide and which are reviewable in the regular course of appeal. . . . The (extraordinary) writs may not be used as a substitute for an authorized appeal."
In observance of the foregoing principles, since petitioner still has the remedy of appeal if she chooses to refuse to comply with the subpoena and is then cited for contempt, we shall deny her petition.
Petition denied.
The majority states that an appeal from a refusal to quash a grand jury subpoena is interlocutory and then goes on to hold that the extraordinary circumstances necessary to justify a writ of prohibition are not present in this case. In my view, such a holding ignores existing precedent and violates the Pennsylvania Constitution.
Petitioner alleges that she was subpoenaed to appear before an investigating grand jury investigating crimes far beyond the scope of its authority. The majority would require that she place herself in jeopardy of criminal contempt in order to realize her right to appellate review guaranteed by Art. V, Sec. 9. 1
I recognize that the ordinary route for challenging a subpoena is through contempt. However, I am in fundamental disagreement with such an approach where there is substantial question concerning the authority to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Municipal Publications, Inc. v. Snyder
...(PUC assertion of power could not be labeled clearly erroneous when jurisdictional question was difficult and of first impression); Petition of Specter, supra (validity of subpoena involved questions of fact, which could be addressed in contempt proceedings); Robertshaw Controls Co. v. Comm......
-
Special Investigation No. 244, In re
...v. Grover, 387 A.2d 21 (Me.1978); Commonwealth v. Winer, 380 Mass. 934, 404 N.E.2d 654 (1980); and In Re: Petition of Arlen Spector, 455 Pa. 518, 519-20, 317 A.2d 286 (1974). Appellants counter with the rule laid down in New York in such cases as Mtr. Cunningham v. Nadjari, 39 N.Y.2d 314, 3......
-
Special Investigation No. 249, In re
...was unsupported by any other state or federal jurisdiction. It relied in part upon a dissenting opinion in In Re: Petition of Arlen Specter, 455 Pa. 518, 317 A.2d 286 (1974), wherein the dissenting justices xxxx expressed the view that such an order was appealable because a person should no......
-
In re Investigating Grand Jury of Philadelphia County
... ... 192] of the validity of the subpoena based on the standards ... adopted in Hawthorne. Cf. In Re Petition of Arlen ... Specter, 455 Pa. 518, 317 A.2d 286 (1974) (witness may ... not use writ of prohibition to circumvent direct appeal for ... review of ... ...