Posted on 06/30/2003 8:56:32 PM PDT by chance33_98
Former Monsignor Released By Judge
POSTED: 1:21 p.m. PDT June 30, 2003 UPDATED: 5:49 p.m. PDT June 30, 2003
In the wake of a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling, a former San Francisco monsignor was released on his own recognizance Monday after being charged with 244 child molestation counts involving 12 alleged victims.
Monsignor Patrick O'Shea, 70, is scheduled to return to San Francisco Superior Court July 16 for a hearing on whether the charges against him should be dismissed in light of the high court's ruling last week that struck down a California law which had allowed accused child molesters to be prosecuted years after the crimes allegedly occurred.
However, even if the child molestation charges against O'Shea, former pastor of St. Cecilia's Catholic Church in San Francisco, are dismissed, he still would have to face an unrelated theft charge for allegedly stealing from the church.
An alleged victim told NBC11, "History has shown it's a known fact that pedophiles will repeat their crimes... and history has shown that the church has harbored these pedophiles."
In a similar case, veteran basketball coach Mike Phelps of Bishop O'Dowd High School in Alameda is scheduled to appear in court in Alameda Monday on two counts of lewd and lascivious conduct behavior with a minor under 14. The charges stem from incidents that allegedly occurred in 1966.
Phelps may ask that the charges against him be dropped in the wake of the Supreme Court's ruling last week.
Yusuf Bey, a Black Muslim cleric in Oakland, was scheduled to appear in Alameda County Superior Court in Oakland today on numerous counts of rape and molestation of young girls. At issue is whether he is fit to stand trial because his doctor has testified that Bey is dying of cancer and is too incoherent to stand trial.
But Bey's hearing was postponed until July 7.
No, this ruling was that California could not retroactively extend the Statute of Limitations because it violates the Constitutions "Ex Post Facto" clause.
So9
Lawrence is not to blame in this case, but what's to prevent an enterprising lawyer from using Lawrence to defend a homosexual pedophile in another case?
Probably the same thing that stopped any lawyers from arguing that Roe v Wade provided a defense for a woman who killed her small child..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.