COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA THIRTY-THIRD STATEWIDE INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY IN RE: NOTICE NOS. 1, 7, 10, 18 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS OF GRAND JURY BEFORE: BARRY FEUDALE, SUPERVISING JUDGE DATE: APRIL 13, 2011, 8:57 A.M. PLACE: STRAWBERRY SQUARE VERIZON TOWER, EIGHTH FLOOR WALNUT STREET HARRISBURG, PA 17120 COUNSEL PRESENT: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: ANDREA MCKENNA, ESQUIRE JONELLE ESHBACH, ESQUIRE FRANK FINA, ESQUIRE DAVID GORMAN, ESQUIRE FOR - COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY BY: CYNTHIA BALDWIN, ESQUIRE FOR - GRAHAM SPANIER LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM GRUBB BY: WILLAIM GRUBB, ESQUIRE FOR - JOHN SPINO SHANNON MANDERBACH REPORTER-NOTARY PUBLIC ARCHIVE REPORTING & CAPTIONING SERVICE, INC. oi 2336 N. 2nd Street © Harrisburg, PA 17110 FAX (717) 234-619010 qi 12 13 (Proceedings in chambers.) MS. BALDWIN: The reason that I wanted to -- and I had mentioned this to Jonelle; I don't know whether she mentioned it to you -- is that the first thing is that I thought that the scope of the one subpoena was so broad because it asked for all emails from the people that were involved -- and I have no problem with the people that were involved -- from 1997 through the present I'm assuming it was. The fact is that I told Jonelle that we were having problems doing that. 1 think people think that there's some kind of one system that does everything at Penn State. There is not. And she didn't have a problem with that. The other issue that I have is that right now there is so much that's leaking out of someplace, and I'm not accusing anybody here. But the fact is those emails are very sensitive. This is a university. You've asked for emails from Joe Paterno. There are emails about recruiting and those kinds of things. You've asked for emails from President Spanier. Needless to say, everything about the running of the university would be inthose emails. You've asked for emails from the AD, who is Tim Curley. Again, we have all kinds of information about recruiting practices and what we're doing athletically and coaches and who's being hired. I just want to be very comfortable with the fact that when we release the information, that this information is going to be protected so that it's not -- I don't read about it in the paper. JUDGE FEUDALE: Your response, Mr. Fina? MR. FINA: As the Court knows, we have been conducting extensive investigations into, for example, public corruption throughout Pennsylvania. And I'm not at liberty to disclose what those are, but we have had the most sensitive forms of information passed through this Grand jury, emails but from and by the highest policy makers in the Commonwealth. None of those have ever leaked out during any of the investigations we have conducted over some number of years, as this Court knows. So I think our seals and our safety net is quite good. JUDGE FEUDALE: Well, there seemed toaa 22 23 have been two areas. First of all, with regard to the breadth or the scope of the request, I don't believe there was any motion to quash or to limit. So you were just making a general statement. You're not making an oral motion with regard to the fact that the -- MS. BALDWIN: The fact is that, yes, I am making an oral motion as far as that's concerned because my understanding -- and Mr. Fina can certainly address that -- is that they were looking at Penn State because there was a 1998 incident and then they wanted to know what was happening with regards to a certain limited area. And they've asked for all emails from 1997 through the present and I think that that is broad. JUDGE FEUDALE: why didn't you file a motion to quash? MS. BALDWIN: The reason I didn't file the motion is because I talked to Jonelle Eshbach and said, would we be going before the judge and talk to the judge about this? And she said before we go in, we could talk to the judge. If, in fact, I needed to file a motion to quash at that time, since I had respected them -- and we have cooperated fully,judge Feudale, through this whole thing. I mean, that was not a problem in our cooperation. so if, in fact, I needed to file a motion to quash and it's too late to make an oral motion to quash, then it is on the record that I think that it was much too broad. But, as usual, we will try to cooperate as we have been all the way through. MR. FINA: Your Honor, if the Court wants to entertain a motion to quash at this time, I don't know what the time issue is, Your Honor. Frankly, I don't know. I don't recollect the date that that subpoena was issued and whether the motion would be timely at this time. But if the Court is going to entertain it, I can certainly address in detail in camera the reasons for the breadth of the motion. Beyond that, again, I can only say that as this Court knows, we have oftentimes encountered emails of the most personal nature involving a variety of people and those emails that are unrelated to the investigations we conduct are secured in perpetuity and they will never see the light of day. They will not even be disclosed to the Grand jury. Only those emails that are pertinent to this investigation, if thereare any, would ever be disclosed to the Grand jury and would ever be known outside of an extremely small group of investigators. JUDGE FEUDALE: well, it seems like we're talking about a couple different matters here. As far as the ability of the office of Attorney General and this judge who has responsibility, of course, to ensure the security of the Grand Jury process and documents that are brought before the Grand Jurors to review or not review -- I mean, remember, it's an investigative Grand jury. It doesn't mean all those documents are necessarily going to be utilized. I'm satisfied based on eight years of doing this that there has not been any breach with regard to the documents that have been subpoenaed before the Grand Jury. As far as whether it's an undue burden for you, I don't think you were arguing that. It doesn't seem that's what you're asserting. You seem to be asserting that there's a large amount of documents that have been subpoenaed. Mr. Fina says he would be willing to do it in camera, if need be. That means without you, of course, being present. MS. BALDWIN: Right. I did knowa that. 2 JUDGE FEUDALE: He could indicate the 3 foundation for why the length of period and the 4 depth and breadth of the documents are important. 5 If you deem that necessary, I would ask you to 6 step outside. 7 MS. BALDWIN: Okay. I will step 8 outside and let mr. Fina do that and then if we 9 could back in for a minute? JUDGE FEUDALE: Sure. a MS. BALDWIN: Thank you. 12 (Proceedings in camera.) 3 MR. FINA: Your Honor, let me just 14 give a bit of a factual background that I think is 15 necessary for addressing this issue. what the 16 investigation has revealed to date is there were a 17 number of allegations against Mr. Sandusky who 18 was, up until 1999 and actually it might have been 13 up to 2000, an employee of Penn State University. 20 Prior to that time, there were at 21 least two allegations against him for having 22 inappropriate sexual contact with children. one involved a 1998 incident with two boys in a shower 24 at Penn State University; and prior to that, we 25 have been told there was a 1984 allegation,approximately 1984 allegation, of, again, contact with minor. That 1984 allegation we can't find any police paperwork on and we're still pursuing that. The 1998 allegation, there was a formal police report filed and we have had the investigator who conducted that before the Grand jury. That investigator very specifically remembered the investigation and one of the reasons he remembered it is because it was handled, in his mind, differently than any other investigation he had conducted of that nature. He also believed and testified that part of his report, the title of the report, had been altered after he had filed it in a way to mask that it involved an alleged indecent assault. The title was changed, in fact, from allegations of sexual misconduct by Jerry Sandusky, something along those lines, to administrative review or something like that. He was employed by the Penn state University Police Department that is under the control of Penn State University. In addition, Your Honor, we have found that there was a 2002 incident where anemployee of Penn State named Mcqueary, michael McQueary, actually observed Sandusky in the Lash Building in a shower with what appeared to be an 8 to 10-year-old boy having anal intercourse with the child. He immediately reported that to Coach Paterno. He saw it at about 9:30 on a Friday night. He reported it to Coach Paterno first thing Saturday morning. He actually went to Coach Paterno's home and told him it before 8 a.m. Coach Paterno, Joseph Paterno, then testified and stated that he immediately called Tim Curley, who was the athletic director of Penn State at that time and continues to be that and hold that position, and he called Gary Schultz, who was the Coo of Penn state who coincidentally supervised -- directly was the supervisor of the Penn state University Police Department who would have had jurisdiction over this incident as well as the 1998 incident. Paterno met with those two individuals at his home on sunday, again, showing the seriousness of this matter, He invited them to his home. He testified that he told them what Mcqueary had told him and that he had told them that the contact was sexual in nature.10 JUDGE FEUDALE: You said he told 2 them. who told them? “| MR. FINA: Paterno told them this. Curley and Schultz have testified before the Grand Jury. They're not consistent in their stories. 6 one thing they are consistent on is insisting that 7 they were never in any way, shape or form informed 8 that the contact Mcqueary observed in the shower 9 between Sandusky and this child was sexual. They 10 are saying that they were told it was only u horseplay and that there was nothing sexual about 12 it. 3 There appears to be to the mind of the Commonwealth, Your Honor, obvious credibility 15 issues here in light of why would Coach Paterno 16 and Mcqueary have been making these contacts on a 17 weekend over something as minor as a man 1 horseplaying in the shower with a boy with 19 absolutely no sexual connotations. They insist 20 that is the case. at Despite the fact that they insist 22 there was no sexual connotation whatsoever, that 23 it was never suggested, that it never occurred to them, they went to the president of the university, Graham Spanier, and they informed him11 of this. He has been interviewed. He's here to testify today. He, likewise, insists that at no time, despite the fact that he is an extraordinarily busy man who never gets involved in allegations of misconduct or criminality at Penn State unless it involved matters such as homicide -- those were his words in the interview -- they come to him with this story of nonsexual contact that just involved horseplay and he involved himself in the decision-making process that then occurred. He as well as Curley and Schultz claim the decision was made to ask Sandusky to no longer bring minors into the facilities of Penn state University and they decided that one of their number should go and speak to a nonprofit that Sandusky was significantly associated with called the second Mile. The Second Mile was set up by sandusky funded by contributions often raised through his efforts as somewhat of a celebrity, as I understand it, in the Penn State community to assist at-risk children, predominantly at-risk male children. They have served thousands of12 children over the years and, again, Sandusky is significantly involved in that nonprofit. Again, despite the fact of his claim there was no connotation of sexual misconduct, Penn State through its president, Spanier, had Tim Curley, the athletic director, go and meet with the executive director of the Second Mile, Dr. Raykovitz, to tell him that this nonsexual incident had occurred. we have interviewed a number of children, Your Honor. They are now adults or young adults who were associated with the second Mile. Those interviews have revealed at least four individuals to date who claim that they were either indecently assaulted by Sandusky or there were attempts to indecently assault them for more serious crimes, Your Honor, like IDSI. We have a number of other young people we have interviewed who appear to be masking conduct that may have occurred and we have a number of other interviews we have yet to complete. One of the things we are finding in our interviews, Your Honor, is that the conduct that was being committed by Mr. Sandusky seems to have been notorious. It seems to have fit a13 pattern of he often used the Penn State University facilities. He took these young people to Penn state University events. It appears possible that quite a number of people at Penn State University either knew or suspected that something untoward was happening. That is fundamentally, Judge, why we believe we need a broader set of emails. we believe that there could be a situation here where people are endeavoring to cover up their knowledge of Mr. Sandusky's misconduct. Again, the motive, Your Honor, would be, as I understand it, not only personal to those people who knew and now do not want to be embarrassed by the fact that they did not take appropriate steps to stop this misconduct, but since Mr. Sandusky is apparently some sort of mini celebrity in the Penn state community, they sought to avoid embarrassing the Penn State community with such a terrible consequence that such a celebrity would be engaged in this type of conduct. Based upon the testimony of the police officer, Your Honor, the retired police officer from the Penn State Police Department, we are concerned that affirmative efforts may have14 been made to restrict information from this investigation or alter information. Your Honor, I invite any safeguards that the Court may want to impose. we realize this is a large amount of information. I don't relish having to go through all this stuff, but we have serious concerns that if we leave it to the university and its officials to go through this information, that it would be filtered in a way that could restrict what we receive. (Ms. Esbach enters chambers.) MR. FINA: We really want to find out not only whether there were emails about the cases we know about, the 1998 incident, the 2002 incident and the alleged 1984-85 incident, but what other incidents there may have been. we, again, just as recently as last week uncovered a MS. ESHBACH: | through his attorney, detailed a really extraordinarily involved series of inappropriate sexual contacts with Mr. Sandusky at Penn State university. They seem, again, to be notorious and that's why we think emails where people often15 write candid things, they write offhand comments, they write masked comments and metaphors may prove very worthwhile to us to review to see if there is any information related to what we're looking at. Obviously, we have no interest in the recruiting of Penn State. We have no interest in any personal issues facing any of these individuals. We're just interested in getting to the truth of what's going on here and who knew what was going on. JUDGE FEUDALE: Does anyone have a copy of the subpoena? MS. ESHBACH: It's in my office, Your Honor, and I apologize for your being blindsided with this. This was supposed to occur at 10:30, not first thing this morning. I apologize. I didn't know that I wouldn't get here in time to coordinate the way this transpired. MR. FINA: We can get a copy for the court. JUDGE FEUDALE: Just to pick up on something else you said, Mr. Fina, with regard to the amount and then the handling, an analogy can be the Bonusgate and the large amount of documents that were received by the office of attorneyql 12 13 16 General in those investigations. How did you handle that with regard to the depth and breadth of documents as far as the storing and utilization of those documents? MR. FINA: Yes, Your Honor. As the Court knows, it was a huge effort. I believe that in the House Republican Caucus investigation, we are up at over 15 million documents. Some significant portion of those involve emails. what we've done is we have secure in-house electronic storage devices where we specifically assign those documents. we scan them in. In the case of emails, it's easy because we often receive them in their original electronic form, We put them into this server and then only specific individuals are authorized to access and search those documents. We have two search programs, DT Search and Case Logistics, and then one or two or three, however many agents, are specifically assigned with search terms to go through those documents and look for any relevant information. If search terms do not prove satisfactory, Judge, one of the other things we do is we identify time lines and we will have agents go in and search20 nr every email for a one-month period that is around the period of an event and see if there's any kind of hint at that in that time line. So those are the efforts we make in terms of the investigation. And as the Court knows, then once the investigation is concluded, those materials are removed from the system. They are placed on an electronic storage device or just kept on the original form that they were provided and then they're put into storage. They're locked in a secured storage in perpetuity. JUDGE FEUDALE: You weren't here for the initial discussion. It appeared that counsel for Mr. Spanier initially expressed concern about recent disclosures and didn't get specific about that and then indicated that there was a broad amount of materials that were subpoenaed and didn't indicate to the Court, at least as I could understand it, she was alleging that it was unduly overbroad or burdensome or oppressive. At least I didn't hear those types of words. I had asked her if she had filed a written motion. She didn't. She alluded to the fact that she had discussed with you the fact that there were some concerns evidently and that that16 47 18 18 would be discussed with me sometime today evidently. You had indicated you thought it was going to be somewhat later in the morning that you were going to be coming before the Court with Attorney Baldwin and Mr. Spanier. MS. ESHBACH: That's correct, Your Honor. Her initial response to me was that she was going to seek to have the subpoena quashed because it was too broad and would I narrow the scope, and I said politely no. And she said, well, then we would like to discuss with the judge our inability to respond by April 11th because of the amount of emails that would be necessary to be retrieved. Also she told me something with respect to the -- antiquated was not her term, but not the most cutting edge or up-to-date system that they had in place with regard to the administrative part of the university. she told me the student stuff is just cutting edge, but that the stuff that they use amongst the administration she claimed was piecemeal and didn't work as well. So she said they would have trouble from a logistics point of view responding by the 11th.19 she also alluded to the fact that she might ask you to limit the search. I said it would be fine if we discussed that. She said, T can't respond by the 11th. 1 said, you're going to be here on the 13th anyway. We can discuss it with the judge at that point. And I advised the folks in the Grand Jury section to get an additional reporter. What I had anticipated was that we would put Mr. Spanier in, get him done, and then address this issue so we would not be having Grand jurors sitting. JUDGE FEUDALE: so you feel that you are able to address what testimony you were hoping to elicit from him today -- MS. ESHBACH: Absolutely. JUDGE FEUDALE: -- without those documents. Perhaps he would be called back depending upon the -- MR. FINA: Yes, Your Honor. MS. ESHBACH: It's possible. MR. FINA: Might I suggest a possible solution? Your Honor, what we are primarily concerned about is the security of the email. so perhaps what could be done is that they fulfill the broad mandate of the subpoena, turn over those20 disks to the Court, and then they can only turn over to the Commonwealth the subset of documents that are in any way, shape or form related to Mr. Sandusky. MS. ESHBACH: My concern is that they would allude to something without specifically mentioning that topic. MR. FINA: Well, that's the difficulty. But, again, anything that could possibly be alluding to involving Mr. Sandusky could be turned over to us and then if it becomes an issue that we believe a deeper inquiry needs to be made, we can re-address the matter with the Court obviously with Penn State's counsel's presence. But at least then the totality of the emails would be secure and safe. JUDGE FEUDALE: Before you came in, Jonelle, Mr. Fina, as per discussion with the Court and counsel, had indicated that he would be willing to do an in camera offer with regard to the depth and breadth of the investigation, taking it back to the earliest referrals and concerns to justify what I thought was part of the concern also with regard to the relevance of the information that was being sought as far as the19 21 depth and breadth and how far back it went. I'm satisfied in that regard and I'm willing to make that comment on the record. But it sounded just a little bit different though with regard to whether, in fact, they feel that they want to turn over everything. MS. ESHBACH: Yes. TI guess we're getting mixed messages because no one -- I wasn't here for the offer, but there was no security concern raised to me. I can understand why it's been raised in light of what's been in the paper. But that was not raised to me as an issue for the Court. The issue was inability to comply in the fashion that we dictated in the subpoena and concerns about the breadth of the subpoena. MR. FINA: I would note for the record, Your Honor, that the article yesterday referring to a subpoena that had been issued to Penn State, all of that information per the article came from Penn State. They were the ones that told the newspaper they received the subpoena and that they were gathering the information. MS. MCKENNA: Is there a way to separate this issue from his testimony today so that we can have him testify?6 22 MR. FINA: That's what we're endeavoring to do. JUDGE FEUDALE: I still would like to see the subpoena. MS. ESHBACH: I'll be happy to go get it. Do you want to see the subpoena before he begins his testimony? Do you want to take him in and start? MR. FINA: That's up to the judge. 1 prefer to get him in, Your Honor. We're not going to ask him about anything related to the subpoena. I didn't hear Attorney Baldwin object to his testimony yet. JUDGE FEUDALE: That's true. Bring her in and see if we can accomplish that. MS. MCKENNA: It would seem if we represented to her what you just represented to the Court about the scope of the testimony, that perhaps they wouldn't object. MS. ESHBACH: I'll get her. (Proceedings in chambers.) JUDGE FEUDALE: What was occurring when Mr. Fina was providing the Court information is what we often do, as you're well aware, Counsel, in camera just to be sure that as far ascic} the depth and breadth of the subpoena, the information that's being sought in the subpoena, even though it's relevant to this investigation, isn't inappropriately broad. There was a very extended offer with regard to the depth and breadth of this investigation which, quite frankly, without being specific has extended since the investigation began and got broader and deeper and the emails in question and documents in question without having reviewed them would appear to be relevant. I also learned that evidently the testimony of your witness today could proceed without the discussions, especially since you didn't file a written motion to quash and wasn't very specific with regard to what it is that you felt was inappropriately subpoenaed or whatever concerns you were having with regard to compliance with the subpoena. MS. BALDWIN: Right, Your Honor. There were three separate subpoenas. I was only talking about the one and I wasn't talking about the testimony Of Dr. Spanier. JUDGE FEUDALE: Okay, and that's where we were headed. When Jonelle Eshbach came24 in here, she has focused on that. It sounds like Dr. Spanier's testimony can proceed and that there isn't any issues relevant to subpoenaed documents regarding his testimony at least at this point in time. MS. BALDWIN: No, His testimony can definitely proceed. MR. FINA: I agree, Your Honor. we're not going to ask about anything related to the subpoena. MS. BALDWIN: First let me thank you, Your Honor, for entertaining the oral motion to quash. 1 really appreciate that. Secondly, was there a decision on the oral motion to quash? JUDGE FEUDALE: No, there was not. I don't have in front of me the actual subpoena. 1 need to review that. 1 can also indicate to you that I want you to file a written notion. I haven't decided that at this point in time. MS. BALDWIN: Sure. JUDGE FEUDALE: It appears I could make the ruling without a written motion. ordinarily, it's a written motion. 1 have had oral motions in the past that were narrow and able to be determined contemporaneous with the motion.10 25 MS. BALDWIN: Actually, it's a very small subpoena. MR. FINA: Your Honor, should I suggest on the record the solution that I proposed? JUDGE FEUDALE: Sure. Go ahead. MR. FINA: Attorney Baldwin, what I suggested on the record is the following resolution and that is all of the emails in question would still be acquired by the university and -- MS. BALDWIN: May I show this? MR. FINA: Absolutely. JUDGE FEUDALE: Yes, and that was where Mr. Fina spent a good deal of time indicating why the emails went back to 1997 for those particular individuals, Gary Schultz, Tim Curley, Graham Spanier, Joe Paterno and Tom Harmon. He laid a very thorough factual foundation as to the basis for and relevance for the subpoena from 1997 back. Anyway, listen to Mr. Fina with regard to his proposal. MS. BALDWIN: Thank you. MR. FINA: Is that the emails in question still be acquired and that they be26 provided to the judge to be held in a secure fashion so that they remain whole and intact and, again, secure. Then what we would ask is that -- we can work on language in this regard -- essentially that any of those emails, any subset of those emails that relate in any fashion, whether they're illusions or direct statements to Mr. Sandusky, that those would be culled out by the university and provided directly to the office of attorney General. We would not have access to the whole body of information held by the judge unless we determine that there was some additional necessity; we felt there was some problem. But in that fashion, we are assured that the body of emails are held secure and intact and inviolate. And I'm not suggesting honestly that you might do that, but I'd say it's a big place and unfortunately we have encountered too many situations where things go missing. MS. BALDWIN: I put a preservation hold. MR. FINA: Right. well, unfortunately, with the Legislature we found quite a few of those preservation holds that didn't hold11 12 27 anything. MS. BALDWIN: I'm glad we're not the Legislature. MR. FINA: No. I am too. Anyway, I think it would provide a safety net for all of us that may resolve the situation. Obviously, you can contemplate that. MS. BALDWIN: Well, let me accept that at this time, Your Honor, and let me tell you that I have had the IT people -- I've been pushing the IT people and I believe that we can cull those out for you, that we can do all of those. They told me that they thought they would be able to finish all of this up by Friday, no later than Friday. At that time I can make arrangements to have all of them delivered to you and the culled ones delivered to him. And then whatever decisions come after that will come after that. MR. FINA: That's great. Obviously, those decisions would involve you. JUDGE FEUDALE: Can you give me an idea of the depth and breadth of what it is that's going to be coming into my custody and held? MS. BALDWIN: We're going to put it on a USB. It shouldn't be any bigger than that.14 15 16 28 JUDGE FEUDALE: I'm glad to hear that. The last time I had like 40 boxes that came from -- but anyway, at least I don't have to deal with the legislative privilege. So I'm thankful for something too. MS. BALDWIN: No. we will definitely do that. JUDGE FEUDALE: All right. That seems to be a satisfactory resolution. TI will have it memorialized in some way in an order. I will get a copy of what was set forth. Cindy, just for the record, who do you represent? MS. BALDWIN: The university. JUDGE FEUDALE: The university solely? MS. BALDWIN: Yes, I represent the university solely. (Proceedings in chambers.) MR. FINA: Your Honor, present on Notice No. 1 we have a single witness to be sworn and the witness is Graham Spanier. I'm not sure of the spelling. JUDGE FEUDALE: Spell it, please, sir. MR. SPANIER: S-p-a-n-i-e-r.29 JUDGE FEUDALE: Good morning. I'm Barry Feudale. I'm a Senior Judge from Northumberland County. I've been assigned by the Chief Justice of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Ronald Castille, to supervise the 33rd statewide Investigative Grand Jury which has subpoenaed you to appear as a witness before it. Now, as a witness before the Grand Jury, you're entitled to certain rights and subject to certain duties which I'm now going to explain to you. All of these rights and duties are equally important and it's important that you fully understand each of them. First, you have the right to the advice and assistance of a lawyer. This means you have the right to the services of a lawyer with whom you may consult concerning all matters pertaining to your appearance before the Grand Jury. You may confer with your lawyer at any time before, during and after your testimony. You may consult with your lawyer throughout your entire contact with the Grand Jury. Your lawyer may be present with you in the Grand Jury room during the time you're actually testifying and you10 12 30 may confer with him or with her at that time. You may at any time discuss your testimony with your lawyer and except for cause shown before the Court, you may disclose your testimony to whomever you choose, if you choose. You also have the right to refuse to answer any question pending a ruling by the Court directing you to respond if you honestly believe there are proper legal grounds for your refusal. In particular, you have the right to refuse to answer any question which you honestly believe may tend to incriminate you. Should you refuse to answer any question, you may offer a reason for your refusal but you're not obliged to do so. If you answer some questions or begin to answer any particular question, this does not necessarily mean that you must thereafter continue to answer your questions or even to complete the answers that you have started. Now, any answers you give to any question can and may be used against you either for the purpose of a Grand Jury Presentment, a Grand Jury Report or a Criminal Information. In other words, if you're uncertain31 as to whether you may lawfully refuse to answer any question or if any other problem arises during the course of your appearance before the Grand Jury, you have the right to stop the questioning and appear before me, either alone or, of course, in this case with your counsel, and I will rule on that matter whatever it may be. Now, do you understand these rights? MR. SPANIER: Yes. JUDGE FEUDALE: Next, a witness before the Grand jury has the duty to give full, truthful, complete and honest answers to all questions asked except where the witness appropriately refuses to answer on a proper legal ground. I'm hereby directing you to observe and obey this duty. In this regard I must caution you that if a witness answers untruthfully, he may be subjected to prosecution for perjury which is punishable under the Crimes Code of Pennsylvania. It's a very serious offense. It's a felony. Again, I ask you, do you have any questions about your rights or your obligations before this Grand jury? MR. SPANIER: What is a Grand Jury32 report? JUDGE FEUDALE: It is a document that they are entitled to submit that is independent of a presentment. A presentment is similar to an indictment. x've had many Grand Jury reports issued over the years I've been Grand Jury Judge, about eight, nine years. They have issued such reports as recommending they get paid more. They have recommended changes in legislation. The most recent report that they issued was a report we call the Bonusgate report where as a result of hearing many months and years, a year and a half of testimony, they felt that there needed to be changes, systemic changes. They made recommendations that I felt were appropriately disseminated and distributed to the public. so it's aright. It's a historic right and a statutory right that the Grand juries have based on their duties and responsibilities, not just to decide whether there is or is not evidence to have someone indicted, presented, but also whether they feel that there needs to be changes in a system and that system can be an organization, a corporation.21 22 23 24 33 MR. SPANIER: A report comes from you? JUDGE FEUDALE: I have to review it. I'm the one that has to review it and I decide whether a report is appropriate, falls within the ambit of the work of the Grand Jury. If I would decide to release it and the Attorney General doesn't agree with it, they could perhaps take action at the higher court level. It happens more frequently than some people think and not many people are aware that such a report can be issued. But it is something that is done on occasion. Any other questions? MR. SPANIER: No. JUDGE FEUDALE: Anything from the Commonwealth? MR. FINA: No, thank you. JUDGE FEUDALE: Please raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you give before the 33rd Statewide Investigative Grand Jury in the matters being inquired into by it will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. If so, say I do. MR. SPANIER: I do. JUDGE FEUDALE: Thank you. Any34 motions? MR. FINA: Your Honor, just that the agents be allowed to be present for the testimony. JUDGE FEUDALE: To assist in the investigation? MR. FINA: Yes, Agent Sassano and Trooper Rossman. JUDGE FEUDALE: Those motions are granted. You will be providing me with the information? MS. BALDWIN: I will have that to you. JUDGE FEUDALE: Before you leave today? Is that before you leave today? I wasn't quite clear on that part of the recommendation. MS. BALDWIN: The fact is that we still have to cull out the information where we have to do those two things. We will definitely have them to you by Friday. JUDGE FEUDALE: 1 misunderstood. MS. BALDWIN: Is that all right? MR. FINA: That's fine. That's absolutely fine. JUDGE FEUDALE: Thank you very much. (Proceedings before the Grand Jury.)