17 names must stay secret in Baltimore Archdiocese abuse report, court rules

Listen to this article

The Maryland Supreme Court on Monday prevented the publication of the names of 17 people accused of abusing children or covering up abuse within the Catholic Church.

The state’s high court unanimously ruled that the Maryland Office of the Attorney General must keep the names of 17 clergy and other church officials redacted in its landmark 2023 report on decades of systemic abuse within the Archdiocese of Baltimore.

More than 150 alleged abusers are named in the report, which, along with the Maryland Child Victims Act, prompted a public reckoning and thousands of lawsuits. The report was based in large part on grand jury testimony, which is generally confidential.

The attorney general’s office, which declined to comment, argued that disclosure was in the public interest, especially because so many alleged abusers had died or because the statute of limitations had expired. None of the people named or unnamed in the report were charged with crimes.

One of the petitioners seeking to prevent disclosure had been accused of abuse. The rest were accused of covering it up or doing too little to stop it.

The Maryland Supreme Court reversed rulings by the Baltimore City Circuit Court and Maryland Appellate Court. The lower court allowed the disclosure of the names; the appellate agreed they could be disclosed but on a case-by-case basis, not as a group. The Appellate Court sent the case back and required the attorney general’s office to prove there was a “particularized need” to disclose each individual’s identity.

State Supreme Court Justice Jonathan Biran wrote that the office couldn’t meet that burden by arguing disclosure was in the public interest.

“We hold that the balancing test this Court adopted in (a previous case) has no application where the purpose of the requestor in seeking disclosure is to publicize negative information about uncharged individuals who object to such disclosure,” Biran wrote.

“The interest of public accountability does not give rise to a particularized need for disclosure of grand jury material sufficient to overcome an uncharged person’s objection to disclosure,” he wrote.

The 7-0 decision included specially assigned Senior Justice Robert McDonald, who served in place of Justice Steven Gould. The court heard arguments in September.

Gregg Bernstein, a partner at Zuckerman Spaeder and a former Baltimore City state’s attorney, represented most of the petitioners. He said he was grateful that the court upheld the “bedrock principle of grand jury secrecy.”

“Our clients are extremely pleased with the court’s opinion and grateful for the decision,” Bernstein told The Daily Record. “They always felt that it was an error for them to be publicly named without having a meaningful forum in which to challenge the allegations and gain vindication.”

The archdiocese, which was not a party to the case, applauded the decision.

“The Archdiocese respects the decision of the Maryland Supreme Court, which affirms longstanding grand jury practice that protects the rights of individuals,” archdiocese spokesperson Christian Kendzierski stated in an email.

“The court’s decision affirms that the Attorney General’s efforts to disclose the names of individuals who stand accused of no crime would violate state law surrounding ground jury proceedings and result in serious reputational harm to several individuals who stand accused of no crime.”