An archdiocesan investigation in 2018 claimed Bishop Michael Bransfield engaged in multiple instances of sexual harassment and financial malfeasance of diocesan funds.
![Maryland Supreme Court: State cannot reveal names of individuals who allegedly hid Church abuse #Catholic Prosecutors in Maryland may not reveal the names of individuals who allegedly hid or failed to report Church abuse, the state Supreme Court said April 27. As part of its investigation into alleged abuse in the Archdiocese of Baltimore, the state attorney generalʼs office had sought to make public the details of a grand jury report, including the identities of individuals who have not been charged with a crime but who allegedly failed to stop abuse from occurring. A lower court granted the attorney generalʼs request to publish the information, with an appellate court partly upholding that decision. Yet in its April 27 ruling, the Maryland Supreme Court reversed those decisions, holding that the attorney generalʼs office did not “meet [the] burden” of justifying the release of the identities. “Many grand jury investigations obtain damaging information and allegations about uncharged individuals that the public might benefit from learning,” the high court acknowledged. But “one of the primary purposes of grand jury secrecy is to protect uncharged persons from public disgrace in the absence of a criminal charge and a forum in which to seek vindication,” it said. “A court may not order disclosure of secret grand jury material, over the objection of an uncharged individual, for the purpose of holding that person accountable in the court of public opinion,” the justices said. The court noted that the attorney generalʼs office had argued that the “intensity of public interest” in the case could justify revealing the identities.Yet “the interests promoted by grand jury secrecy do not increase or decrease based on how much the public wants to learn the information contained in grand jury materials,” the court said.The decision comes amid ongoing court proceedings in the Archdiocese of Baltimore, which filed for bankruptcy in September 2023 ahead of a wave of sex abuse claims filed against it under the Maryland Child Victims Act. Earlier this month, the archdiocesan insurer Hartford Insurance Group proposed contributing $100 million to a settlement for abuse victims. The archdiocese in 2024 sued multiple insurers over what it claimed was a failure to pay abuse claims for which the insurers were contractually obligated.In 2024 Archbishop William Lori attended two court-ordered “listening sessions” with alleged victims of sexual abuse, with the prelate describing himself as "deeply moved by their very powerful testimony.”](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/maryland-supreme-court-state-cannot-reveal-names-of-individuals-who-allegedly-hid-church-abuse-catholic-prosecutors-in-maryland-may-not-reveal-the-names-of-individuals-who-allegedly-hid-or-failed-to-scaled.jpg "Maryland Supreme Court: State cannot reveal names of individuals who allegedly hid Church abuse #Catholic Prosecutors in Maryland may not reveal the names of individuals who allegedly hid or failed to report Church abuse, the state Supreme Court said April 27. As part of its investigation into alleged abuse in the Archdiocese of Baltimore, the state attorney generalʼs office had sought to make public the details of a grand jury report, including the identities of individuals who have not been charged with a crime but who allegedly failed to stop abuse from occurring. A lower court granted the attorney generalʼs request to publish the information, with an appellate court partly upholding that decision. Yet in its April 27 ruling, the Maryland Supreme Court reversed those decisions, holding that the attorney generalʼs office did not “meet [the] burden” of justifying the release of the identities. “Many grand jury investigations obtain damaging information and allegations about uncharged individuals that the public might benefit from learning,” the high court acknowledged. But “one of the primary purposes of grand jury secrecy is to protect uncharged persons from public disgrace in the absence of a criminal charge and a forum in which to seek vindication,” it said. “A court may not order disclosure of secret grand jury material, over the objection of an uncharged individual, for the purpose of holding that person accountable in the court of public opinion,” the justices said. The court noted that the attorney generalʼs office had argued that the “intensity of public interest” in the case could justify revealing the identities.Yet “the interests promoted by grand jury secrecy do not increase or decrease based on how much the public wants to learn the information contained in grand jury materials,” the court said.The decision comes amid ongoing court proceedings in the Archdiocese of Baltimore, which filed for bankruptcy in September 2023 ahead of a wave of sex abuse claims filed against it under the Maryland Child Victims Act. Earlier this month, the archdiocesan insurer Hartford Insurance Group proposed contributing $100 million to a settlement for abuse victims. The archdiocese in 2024 sued multiple insurers over what it claimed was a failure to pay abuse claims for which the insurers were contractually obligated.In 2024 Archbishop William Lori attended two court-ordered “listening sessions” with alleged victims of sexual abuse, with the prelate describing himself as \"deeply moved by their very powerful testimony.”")
“Uncharged individuals” may not be exposed to the “court of public opinion” in grand jury documents, the state high court ruled.
