How did Officer Hall die?
Secret justice can never be justice
One sentence. That’s all Allegheny County Common Pleas Judge Jill Rangos deigned to write in dismissing the Pittsburgh Post- Gazette’s request to unseal public records in the fatal shooting of off- duty Pittsburgh police officer Calvin Hall.
Her breezy rejection of the Post-Gazette’s weighty public- access arguments put her in lockstep with the district attorney’s office, which has gone to great lengths to keep the public from finding out what happened in the minutes leading up to Officer Hall’s death.
Judge Rangos cited a rule pertaining to the operation of grand juries as her reason for continuing to hide normally public records from public view.
She could have better explained the rationale behind her decision or held a hearing to explore these important issues in detail. But she didn’t.
In her one- sentence order, there’s no evidence that she even read the Post- Gazette’s brief arguing for public release of the criminal complaint and affidavit against Christian Bey, the person charged with shooting Officer Hall after an argument broke out between two groups, including members of the officer’s family, in Homewood.
On July 18, Pittsburgh police described Bey as a person of interest in Officer Hall’s death. On July 22, they announced his arrest but declined to provide details. In the interim, the
district attorney’s office got a judge — it wouldn’t even say which judge — to seal the affidavit and arrest warrant.
District Attorney Stephen A. Zappala Jr. has said that the secrecy is needed to protect witnesses while a grand jury hears the case. But that raises a raft of questions, including: Why charge Bey before the grand jury completes its work? Why not release the criminal complaint and affidavit without witnesses’ names ( a common tactic)? Are there other reasons Mr. Zappala might want to keep this case under wraps?
After the Post- Gazette went to court to demand the records be unsealed, the district attorney’s office had time to file a brief opposing the request. That was time neither the newspaper nor any member of the public had under grand jury rules to oppose the district attorney’s request for a seal in the first place.
In his brief, the district attorney’s office restated its desire for secrecy and said the newspaper’s right to information about the case would be granted “in due time.” In other words, when he feels like it, Mr. Zappala will recognize a right he somehow views as fungible.
Weeks after Officer Hall’s death, the public still does not know how or why. Instead of conducting a robust and impartial review of Mr. Zappala’s actions, Judge Rangos has rubber- stamped them. That is appalling.