BANGOR – Attorneys on Thursday faced a barrage of tough questions from justices as the Maine Supreme Judicial Court took up one of the most controversial cases of this year’s session – whether the results of the Maine attorney general’s investigation into allegations of sexual abuse against deceased Catholic priests should be made public.

The court is not expected to issue its ruling in the case for at least several months.

Blethen Maine Newspapers Inc. v. State of Maine drew a large crowd that packed the third-floor courtroom in the Penobscot County Superior Courthouse, where the state’s high court convened Wednesday and Thursday to consider eight cases.

Members of mock trial teams from Machias, John Bapst, Camden Hills high schools and Hampden Academy, along with court personnel and local residents, listened intently Thursday as six of the seven justices – Leigh Saufley, Robert Clifford, Paul Rudman, Howard Dana Jr., Jon Levy and Donald Alexander – aggressively quizzed attorneys.

Justice Susan Calkins was unable to attend.

Many of the justices’ questions concerned weighing an individual’s right to privacy against the public’s right to know. The court members also expressed concern about whether releasing the results of the investigation would set a precedent that might cause journalists and others to demand investigative material in hundreds of cases in which charges are never filed.

Once charges are filed, most investigative material, such as police reports and affidavits, become public documents.

In his questioning, Justice Alexander expressed concern over the impact of publishing the names of sexual abuse victims.

“What message do we send to victims who are thinking of coming forward who currently might be being abused?” he asked. “Is the message that you want to send them that … if you report this to a law enforcement agency, it might show up on the front page of the Portland Press Herald tomorrow morning?”

The question hung in the air unanswered, although the newspaper has stated that its policy is not to publish the names of victims unless they want to be identified publicly.

Last year, Blethen sued Maine Attorney General Steven Rowe under the Freedom of Access Act to get copies of documents turned over to his office by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland in 2002.

Those files contain allegations of sexual abuse of children by priests and other employees over the past 75 years. Reportedly included in the files are allegations against 18 priests who have died.

Superior Court Justice Kirk Studstrup ruled in the newspaper publisher’s favor in October of last year. He stated in his findings that “the public interest in allegations of sexual abuse of minors, and particularly how such allegations were or were not investigated by the diocese and law enforcement officials, is of great and appropriate public interest.”

The attorney general appealed that decision, even though the newspaper agreed to accept documents with names of victims and witnesses redacted or blacked out.

Assistant Attorney General Leanne Robbin argued Thursday that the records were exempt from the state’s Freedom of Access law because they were part of a continuing criminal investigation and because the priests have a right to privacy – even after they die. She also told the court that unsubstantiated allegations collected by the government should not be part of the public record.

Blethen’s attorney disagreed.

“The public interest in this case stems from knowing the extent and nature of past abuse, the church’s reaction and the state’s investigation, and the extent of the state’s knowledge and the basis on which the state reached the conclusion put forth in this report,” attorney Sigmund Schutz of Portland said.

Schutz pointed to the friend of the court brief filed by Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, or SNAP, to answer a question from Chief Justice Saufley about how the public interest would be served by releasing just the names of the deceased priests accused of sexual abuse instead of all the information contained in the report.

“The disclosure of the names will encourage victims to come forward and know that they are not alone, receive some level of closure, finality and understanding that they are not the only people subjected to this behavior,” he said. “Essentially, the victims are being used in part as a human shield to protect the perpetrators’ names from being brought to light.”

Despite its intense and serious tenor, the session ended on a humorous note.

Justice Clifford asked Robbin what the financial impact would be on her office and others that conduct criminal investigations if they had to make all investigative records public.

She estimated it would cost millions of dollars.

“If the Legislature intended that, it certainly didn’t give us the money and the personnel to do that,” Robbin said.

“And that would be unusual?” Saufley quipped, referring to the Legislature’s chronic underfunding of the judiciary.