ShareThis Page
Gag order in Penn State hazing case applies to Piazza family, judge rules | TribLIVE.com
Pennsylvania

Gag order in Penn State hazing case applies to Piazza family, judge rules

1156590_web1_Piazza_Family
AP
Jim Piazza and Evelyn Piazza

The Piazza family’s nationwide anti-hazing tour may continue, but it might feature a slightly different script after a Centre County judge ruled Tuesday that a 2018 gag order applies to them.

Defense attorneys Frank Fina and Steve Trialonas — who represent former Beta Theta Pi fraternity members Brendan Young and Daniel Casey, respectively — filed a motion April 10 that sought to limit public statements made by Jim and Evelyn Piazza and their attorneys about the case.

After Timothy Piazza’s alcohol-fueled death at the Penn State fraternity in February 2017, former District Attorney Stacy Parks Miller made a plethora of statements about the case, including an interview with NBC’s “Today” in May 2017.

Centre County Judge Jonathan Grine ultimately issued the gag order in July 2018 to limit “the publicity generated by these cases.” A section of Grine’s order outlining who it applies to includes “any person who has, at any time, directed or participated in the investigation leading to the charges filed against the defendants.”

“Despite the clear directives and intent of this court’s order, there have been repeated and ongoing public statements by the Piazza family — or on their behalf — in direct violation of this court’s order,” Fina wrote in his motion.

Trialonas argued the intent of Grine’s order was “obvious” and should be applied to the case’s “two most outspoken people.”

Judge Brian Marshall agreed, but also listened to Piazza family attorney, David Williams, who reiterated his argument that “the Piazzas have done nothing more than engage in an earnest campaign to end hazing on college and university campuses.”

The Piazzas are scheduled to deliver more than 30 speeches over the next six months, Williams said, and putting a stop to their anti-hazing efforts would be a “tremendous blow.”

Marshall said he will review the arguments and plans to issue an order clarifying what statements, if any, can be made by the Piazzas. He did not offer a timeline for his ruling.

Williams declined to comment after the hearing, but the Piazzas have previously expressed their desire to speak to larger groups at Penn State.

“Penn State is our smallest group so far, and we’ve been to some small schools,” Jim Piazza told WTAJ earlier this month.

Damon Sims, the university’s vice president for student affairs, said Monday that one of the first speaking engagements offered to the Piazzas came from the university at the beginning of the past fall semester.

“Our Fraternity and Sorority Life Office worked with Jim and Evelyn to shape an opportunity consistent with their wish to speak to leaders in the Penn State fraternity and sorority community, including students, advisers and alumni — a sizable group,” Sims said. “Their presentation was exceptionally well-received and impactful, particularly with precisely the group we were working so hard to reach at a critical time in the evolution of our reforms here. I was given the impression that the Piazzas were pleased by the response, too.”

The Piazzas also appeared on university President Eric Barron’s television show and spoke to a group of about 700 University Park students during spring 2018, Sims said.

“It’s my belief that the university community has benefited greatly from Jim and Evelyn’s advocacy, which I hope will continue,” Sims said. “They and we share a common purpose, which is the eradication of hazing for the welfare of all involved. And we’re making good progress together, as evidenced by both relevant data and abundant anecdote. There’s really no question about it.”

Categories: News | Pennsylvania
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.