Notre Dame Protesters Win Right to Individual Jury Trials [ND88]

LifeSiteNews.com ^ | September 20, 2010

[topher]

Monday September 20, 2010

---

Notre Dame Protesters Win Right to Individual Jury Trials

SOUTH BEND, Indiana, September 20, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The 88 pro-lifers (known as the ND88) who were arrested on the campus of the University of Notre Dame last year during President Obama’s controversial visit have won the right to have their own individual jury trials, thanks to the efforts of the Thomas More Society. The prosecution had sought instead to consolidate the cases, and thus expedite the legal process - a request that was denied by Chief Judge Michael Scopelitis.

According to the TMS, the longer the trials continue, the greater the likelihood that Notre Dame exposes itself to negative public relations. The Christian legal society, which is representing the ND88, says it still hopes that the university will avoid such a drawn out process by requesting the prosecution to drop the charges.

“We remain hopeful that Notre Dame will bring these ill-starred criminal misdemeanor proceedings to an early end,” said Tom Brejcha, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Society. “The longer Notre Dame presses these ND88 prosecutions, the more estranged the University will become from the pro-life movement.”

In St. Joseph County Circuit Court last Thursday, TMS special counsel Tom Dixon also beat back efforts by the county prosecutor to force all defendants to return to the town one week prior to their trials – a journey that for some would have involved considerable difficulty and expense. Judge Scopelitis’ court denied the prosecution’s request “in the interest of justice.”

Scopelitis also ruled for the defense in holding that the prosecution must turn over documents related to a woman arrested – but not prosecuted – for holding a pro-life sign on Commencement Day, even as many others around her holding pro-Obama signs were not arrested.

The judge said he would also consider whether TMS attorneys will be able to depose Bill Kirk, Notre Dame's former vice president of residential life, who was in charge of campus security.

Earlier this year, Kirk was removed from his post with the University after it became public that, as recently as January 2010, Notre Dame has not filed charges against gay rights and anti-ROTC activists who have in the past protested on campus without permission. The same treatment was not extended by Notre Dame to the 88 pro-life demonstrators, who were arrested and charged in May 2009.

TMS contends that Kirk's testimony could shed light on what prompted the University's different treatment of pro-life protesters, and help prove that the ND88 were victims of “viewpoint discrimination.” That alone would violate the First Amendment, as campus police who made the arrests were exercising statutory authority vested in them by state law.

Notre Dame President Fr. John Jenkins has repeatedly maintained that all protesters were and are treated equally.

More information can be found at www.thomasmoresociety.org.

Related coverage by LifeSiteNews.com:

Notre Dame Abruptly Sacks Only Admin Member to Protest Obama
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/sep/10090208.html

ND 88 Pro-Lifer Suffers Heart Attack, Diagnosed with Stress Disorder Thanks to Prosecution
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jun/10062414.html

Notre Dame Anti-Military, Pro-Gay Protesters Let Go; Pro-Lifers Still Face Fines, Imprisonment
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/apr/10042208.html

Notre Dame Prez Accuses ND 88 of Threatening Peace and Order on Campus
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/may/10050413.html

URL: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/sep/10092011.html

---

Copyright © LifeSiteNews.com. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives License. You may republish this article or portions of it without request provided the content is not altered and it is clearly attributed to "LifeSiteNews.com". Any website publishing of complete or large portions of original LifeSiteNews articles MUST additionally include a live link to www.LifeSiteNews.com. The link is not required for excerpts. Republishing of articles on LifeSiteNews.com from other sources as noted is subject to the conditions of those sources.

[topher]

Good news for the good guys! Even more bad news for Notre Dame.

I really think God is holding it over Notre Dame with the way Notre Dame lost their last two games. Especially with the opposing coach having a heart attack.

If I was that president of Notre Dame, I would not go outside if it looks like rain. You never know when that bold of lightning will come down from the sky and zap you!

[topher]

Ping

[NTHockey]

My hope is that Notre Dame not win another football game until Jenkins is excommunicated as a child molesting, pro-abortion heretic.

[topher]

From the article:

Earlier this year, Kirk was removed from his post with the University after it became public that, as recently as January 2010, Notre Dame has not filed charges against gay rights and anti-ROTC activists who have in the past protested on campus without permission. The same treatment was not extended by Notre Dame to the 88 pro-life demonstrators, who were arrested and charged in May 2009.

Homosexual weirdos can protest on campus and weirdo hippies can protest against the military, but having a protest against a baby killing president like Obama and Catholics standing up for Catholic causes is against the principles of Notre Dame.

Sounds like the wrong folks were arrested...

Since when did Notre Dame start hiring FREEMASONS for key positions at the University?

[topher]

I doubt if he is a child molester.

But he might be a card carrying communist...

[topher]

God uses fire for purification.

If you recall, the grotto at Notre Dame caught on fire not that long ago.

Maybe it is time that Notre Dame University is purified.

On the other hand, I am happy to see the news about the Portland Archdiocese cleaning up the CCHD!!!

[tal hajus]

Win, WIN? I thought the right to a trial and a jury of peers was a constitutional right.

[Blueflag]

Actually we are NOT guaranteed a “jury of peers”.

“People often say “I have a right to have my case heard by a jury of my peers!” when there is no such right in the Constitution. The Constitution does take up the issue of juries, however. It is the nature of the jury which is not in the Constitution. In Article 3, Section 2, the Constitution requires that all criminal trials be heard by a jury. It also specifies that the trial will be heard in the state the crime was committed.

The 6th Amendment narrows the definition of the jury by requiring it to be “impartial.” Finally, the 7th Amendment requires that certain federal civil trials guarantee a jury trial if the amount exceeds twenty dollars.

Note that no where is a jury “of peers” guaranteed. This is important for some historical and contemporary reasons. Historically, the notion of a peer is one of social standing — in particular, in a monarchy such as the one the United States grew up from, commoners would never stand in judgement of lords and barons. Along these same lines, since suffrage and jury service have always been closely tied (and in the beginnings of the United States it was typical for only white, male, property-owners to be allowed the vote), any combination of gender, race, and economic status would be judged by only one kind of jury, hardly by “peers.”

Today, the American ideal dictates that we are all peers of one another, that regardless of gender, race, religion, social status, or any other division (except age), we are all equal. In this ideal, since we are all peers, a guarantee of a jury of ones peers would be redundant. While some argue with this ideal, it is the most democratic way to approach the subject. Juries need only be impartial, and not made up of one’s peers, else the jury system would be unworkable.”

from http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#jury

[Venturer]

Where are the catholic Bishops and why havent they removed jenkins.

[chesley]

As for me, I hope Notre Dame NEVER wins another game.

I have two teams. The second one is anybody playing Notre Dame, and has been since 1966.

[don-o]

ping

[ArrogantBustard]

Where are the catholic Bishops and why havent they removed jenkins.

No Catholic Bishop has the authority to remove jenkins.

[Venturer]

Somebody has the authority to remove him from the Priesthood. Do it.

[ArrogantBustard]

Somebody has the authority to remove him from the Priesthood.

True ... and if his priestly faculties were suspended, the Board of Regents (or whatever they call themselves) would have a hard time keeping him on as president.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I think you must have missed out on this on different threads. (Will try to find them and ping.)

Basically, the Bishops have no direct authority over ND or Fr. Jenkins. ND is a separately-incorporated entity answerable to its Board of Trustees, who are answerable to nobody but themselves; Fr. Jenkins is not answerable to the Bishop of South Bend, but to his CSC Superior in Rome, who's not going to budge one iota unless there's an indictable felony or a canonical delict.

OK, here's some of the links I was looking for: especially #62 and also #68.

I know, I know, and I agree: sickening.

[Salvation]

Hooray. God is good!

[topher]

The University was trying to try all of the defendents in a single trial -- that is the victory.

By winning the right to individual trial, the charges might be dropped.

But one thing this article brought to my attention was that homosexuals and anti-military types were allowed to protest on campus.

But people who stood for Catholic values got arrested...

[topher]

The Notre Dame Board of Trustees have jurisdiction here.

There is one part of Cannon Law that may apply to Father Jenkins. If he is considered the pastor of Notre Dame University, Bishops cannot interfere with pastors.

But Father Jenkins has taken the oath of obedience. So if the Bishops demanded his resignation, along with the head of his order, he would be forced to resign.

But someone with more knowledge than myself would have to look into this.

[Venturer]

I refuse to call him Father.

He is just jenkins to me.

Any so called priest who allows the baby killing Obama to get an award from his school and then refuses to drop the charges against real Catholics is no priest in my book nor even entitled to being called Mr. Much less Fr.

[jmaroneps37]

Take that Jenkinsist catholics!