Cardinal Ordered to Give Deposition

AP via NYTimes.com ^ | 5/6/02

[GeneD]

Filed at 4:25 p.m. ET

BOSTON (AP) -- A judge Monday ordered Cardinal Bernard Law to give a deposition on Wednesday in the civil litigation against John Geoghan, the now-defrocked priest accused of molesting scores of youngsters.

Superior Court Judge Constance Sweeney expressed concern that Law might not be available to answer questions under oath unless the deposition were held soon.

``His choice of whether he available for deposition is not entirely belonging to him,'' she said. ``If the pope tells him to go to Rome, he goes.''

She denied a request by the archdiocese for a seven-day notice before the deposition.

But she also denied a request by plaintiffs' attorney Mitchell Garabedian that Law be required to post a $10 million bond if he leaves the state.

Garabedian, who represents 86 alleged victims of Geoghan, was pressing on with the litigation after the archdiocese decided on Friday to back out of a settlement in the case. The rejected deal would have paid plaintiffs between $15 million and $30 million.

In rejecting the settlement, the archdiocese's Finance Council cited concern that there would not be enough money left for the growing number of other people alleging they were sexually abused by priests.

[BikerNYC]

This should be interesting.

[Drango]

Finally: Law will have to give unto Caesar, what is Ceasar's. And while it's not my place to judge him, it does not appear that he has given unto God, what is God's.

[uncbob]

``His choice of whether he available for deposition is not entirely belonging to him,'' she said. ``If the pope tells him to go to Rome, he goes.''

Says who
He is an American citizen and subject to American laws

[nofriendofbills]

Anyone know if the content of the deposition be made public anytime soon?

[nofriendofbills]

If he gets a call fom Himself to come to Rome he could be on a plane before the judge knows about it. At this point it wouldn't surprise me one bit. Make him a citizen of the Vatican City State and you can't touch him.

[CatoRenasci]

Indeed, but I think the odds against him giving the deposition are pretty high. One way or another, he'll avoid it.

[tracer]

``His choice of whether he available for deposition is not entirely belonging to him,'' she said. ``If the pope tells him to go to Rome, he goes.''

Perhaps the Cardinal does not understand the concept of contempt of court and the fact that even he is subject to the laws of the land.

All his choices of whether he (sic) available for deposition are belong to us....

[IW]

Forget about the civil deposition and have a criminal grand jury convene. This guy is guilt of crimes after the fact and obstruction of justice.

[Drango]

First question.

What did you know and when did you know it?

Second question.

Define "is"?

Third question

Is oral sex sex?

Ooooops wrong deposition!

[07055]

What are the odds he takes the Fifth Amendment?

[Mr. Lucky]

The protections of the Fifth Amendment apply in a criminal case. They are not available in a civil proceeding between private parties.

[sinkspur]

Anyone know if the content of the deposition be made public anytime soon?

If Garabedian is like Larry Klayman, who loves to try his cases in the press, Law won't have a chance to get home before the deposition is released to the press.

[Bohemund]

The protections of the Fifth Amendment apply in a criminal case. They are not available in a civil proceeding between private parties.

Nope. A witness can invoke the Fifth Amendment in civil suits as well as criminal suits. For example, Mark Fuhrman took the Fifth in the O.J. Simpson civil suit.

[07055]

The major risk to a party that takes the Fifth Amendment in a civil (or administrative) proceeding is that the judge may take an "adverse inference" against that party in the matter. In other words, if Law is asked, "Did you know about Shanley's molestation before you transferred him..." and he takes the Fifth, the Judge can deem the answer to be "yes."

But I am not sure if Cardinal Law is a party to this suit---or just a witness. And I'm not sure of the extent of the application of this rule in Massachusetts.

I don't know if he will do it though because it would be a PR disaster.

[SuziQ]

I don't know if he will do it though because it would be a PR disaster.

If he doesn't, it would be a BIGGER PR disaster!

[connectthedots]

The major risk to a party that takes the Fifth Amendment in a civil (or administrative) proceeding is that the judge may take an "adverse inference" against that party in the matter. In other words, if Law is asked, "Did you know about Shanley's molestation before you transferred him..." and he takes the Fifth, the Judge can deem the answer to be "yes."

Replace 'may' and 'can' with 'must' and you will have the correct interpretation.

[Bohemund]

Well, the general rule allows a witness to take the Fifth in a civil suit regardless of whether he is a party or not. For example, if a character witness was asked if he had ever cheated on his taxes and gotten away with it, he could invoke the Fifth Amendment. Of course an adverse inference may still be drawn.

I'm not familiar with Massachusetts state law either, but the First Circuit has recognized the "adverse inference" rule.

[Mike Fieschko]

Anyone know if the content of the deposition be made public anytime soon?

Better to ask a Massachusetts lawyer, but I believe the judge would have to ok release (assuming it doesn't get leaked -- see sinkspur's post #13).

I expect the newspapers, etc. to be requesting release of the transcript and videotape (if one is made).

[maryz]

The protections of the Fifth Amendment apply in a criminal case. They are not available in a civil proceeding between private parties.

I know of at least one case in which a defendant in a civil proceeding took the fifth in a deposition.