Ruling is a victory for 3 newspapersBY BERNIE HORNICKBHORNICKSTRIBDEM.COMThe decision freeing up autopsy records began in a legal thread pressed by The Tribune-Democrat and successfully tied off in state Supreme Court bytwo newspapers from eastern Pennsylvania.The Johnstown case was filed bv The Tribune-Democrat against Blair County Coroner Patricia Ross in 2002 seeking her records in the death of Bedford County murder victim Dana Gates.The newspaper eventuallylost the case in Commonwealth Court in 2005, which ruled 5-0 that coroners are obligated to release only a bare-bones cause and manner of death. The court was concerned about the nature of the information that would be released in a full autopsy, and cited privacy concerns.The newspaper did not pursue an appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.But the Supreme Court - in a 5-1 January decision - over-TwT:turned the Commonwealth Court’s line of reasoning in a separate case brought by The Morning Call of Allentown and The Express-Times of Easton.The ruling liberally referred to Johnstown Tribune Publishing Co. v. Ross in rejecting the Commonwealth Court’s reasoning.“Basically, thisratifies even*argument wemade at the time in the DanaGates ease.MICHAEL SAHLANEY,ATTORNEY“We have not ignored theconcern noted bv the Common-wealth Court that, if autopsy reports are defined as ‘official records,’ the public may be able to gain access to material (such as a person’s medical history and graphic photos),” the high court said. It said lower courts could withhold such reports only “where warranted.wBut the justices said those concerns do not justify reclassifying autopsy reports from official records to unofficial - and thereby, private - records.The ruling was a decision on the Coroner’s Act, which has its own requirements for release of public information, not on the state’s Right-to-Know Law.“Basically, this ratifies everyw “ Wargument we made at the time in the Dana Gates case,’’ Michael Sahlaney, who wasw * :The Tribune-Democrat’s attorney, said Friday. Both former Publisher Pam Mayer and Iwwere really gratified by the Supreme Court decision.The Tribune-Democrat sued Ross when authorities were unwilling to release information about the Gates murder.“The public benefits from being able to know, especially in criminal cases, the cause of death and being able to see thereport that establishes thecause of death,” Sahlaney said.“So they’re not simply relyingon the coroner’s conclusion butcan see the reasons behind thatconclusion.Ross said of the decision,“I'm very disappointed in it, themoral issues, the privacy issuesof the deceased and the family,•and the complications in the judicial part of it.”She cited a hypothetical case: If a grandmother sitting neara window accidentally was shotwby a hunter, the coroner might order an autopsy that finds she had venereal disease.“Do you really want Grandpa, who is still alive and goes to church every Sunday, to be abler rto access that autopsy report? All you really want to know is that she was killed by a bullet towthe head, Ross contended.Nonetheless, she said shell abide by the Supreme Court’s decision.“1 will follow the letter of the law if someone wants to see one of my reports, Ross said. “And I will absolutely notify the fami-tr wlies when someone wants to see reports - who they are and why.Hours later, however, Bedford County District Attorney Bill Higgins told The Tribune-Democrat he will be in court Monday morning to keep the autopsy records sealed.The Allentown and Eastonnewspapers sued for coroner's information in the 2005 death of an Easton police officer shot and killed inside headquarters.They sued Lehigh County Coroner Scott Grim over his refusal to release the report.Officer Jesse Sollman, 36,had been cleaning his weapon when he was shot in the back by Officer Matthew Renninger.A grand jury rided the shooting unintentional and said charges were not warranted.Renninger retired in 2006.Editor Joseph P. Owens of The Express-Times said alter the decision, “I think it’s a major victory for public information.”An updated state Right-to-Know Law that took eff ect Jan. 1 said autopsy records are not subject to disclosure. But in a footnote to the Supreme Court decision, Justice Seamus P. McCaf-fery said the new law does notwtrump other state laws.