Prosecutors often attempt to keep portions of an investigation under wraps. It is a routine part of the job and, at times, a necessary one.

That was the argument the Allegheny County District Attorney’s Office made in court this week, pushing back against suggestions a search warrant should be unsealed. The reasoning was straightforward: Releasing details too soon could compromise the investigation, damage reputations and expose witnesses to potential retaliation.

Warrants are served every day. This one was different. It was for the City of Pittsburgh.

It happened March 23 and had a 60-day seal. That was challenged by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

“The news media and public have a presumptive right to access to judicial documents,” argued attorney Adam Tragone of the Cornell Law School First Amendment Clinic in Western Pennsylvania.

Deputy District Attorney Jon Pittman countered that unsealing the information could not only threaten the investigation but also hurt reputations and prompt retaliation against witnesses. No details were given — which was consistent with that argument.

Allegheny County Common Pleas Judge Jill E. Rangos, who approved the original sealing, agreed and declined to reverse it.

“Until the commonwealth conducts an investigation, it is not at a point where it can say with certainty that charges will be filed against anyone,” she said.

But why was Pittman sent to make this argument when, just two hours later, Allegheny County District Attorney Stephen A. Zappala Jr. spoke openly about the warrant?

The DA was at an unrelated event when he made the remarks. He did not reveal what was sought with the warrant — other than to call it “voluminous” — or the specific parties involved.

He did, however, speak to the subject — money for programs for at-risk youth in minority communities. That wasn’t all. He also pointed to covid-19 funds and no-bid contracts under the Ed Gainey administration.

It isn’t that any journalist wants Zappala to talk less. He can be difficult to corner for comments.

It is just puzzling the DA would seem to counter his own office’s position the same day a judge agreed with it.

Asking a judge to weigh secrecy against transparency takes time and trust in the process. Doing that and then speaking anyway makes that process feel optional — not to mention performative.

If the courtroom wasn’t the right place to say it, why was anywhere else?