Posted on 03/26/2011 12:59:03 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg
At an intensely combative and vitriolic hearing Friday afternoon in a sex-abuse case that has shaken the Philadelphia Archdiocese to its core, a state court judge shocked one priest's defense attorney by disclosing that the government thinks he might be a witness as a former seminarian and could be disqualified from the case. The lawyer, who represents one of three current and former Roman Catholic priests charged with raping boys in their parish, fired back that prosecutors were being "anti-Catholic" and had uttered an "abomination."
Judge Renee Cardwell Hughes told defense attorney Richard DeSipio that she's received information that "might make you, in fact, a witness because of events that occurred while you were a seminarian."
The information "stems from the fact that you attended the seminary with a student who asserts he was abused," Hughes said, adding that DeSipio "may possess factual knowledge about abuse that occurred with that student."
She added that the substance of the claim that DiSipio witnessed something is still unclear. "I just don't know if it's true," Hughes said. "I really don't know if it's true."
Yelling and visibly upset, DeSipio demanded that the government, then and there, identify the source of the allegation. "Let them spill it out right now!" DeSipio demanded.
"How dare they send you a letter about that," DeSipio said, referring to the district attorney's office. "That's an abomination."
Prosecutors said only that part of DeSipio's seminary training overlapped with the tenure of a senior clergyman accused of endangering children by failing to protect them from priests with a known history of abuse.
Monsignor William Lynn, now pastor of St. Joseph Church in Downingtown, Pa., is reportedly the highest-ranking member of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States ever to be charged with child endangerment. Between 1984 and 1992, he served as dean of men at St. Charles Borromeo Seminary in Wynnewood, Pa., according to his biography on St. Joseph's website. As the secretary for clergy for the Archdiocese of Philadelphia from 1992 to 2004, Lynn acted as personnel director for priests. He is accused of ignoring reports of abuse, covering up for them and putting children in danger.
"They are anti-Catholic. I'll say it," DiSipio fumed. "[The district attorney is] attacking me as a Catholic!"
The judge rejected DiSipio's claim. "Attack you? You attacked me! You don't even know me!" Hughes said, referring to a prior argument over the necessity of a preliminary hearing, another hotly contested issue Friday afternoon.
"Mr. DeSipio, I suggest you shut up," Hughes said. "People are coming from out of the woodwork [to provide information to the commonwealth.]"
If the government can prove the allegation is credible in 30 days, DeSipio will be disqualified as the archdiocese's attorney.
"You can change lawyers now, you can change lawyers in 30," the judge warned DeSipio's client, the Rev. James Brennan. "[But] there are some conflicts that are not waivable."
DeSipio argued that the 30-day investigation was "really unfair to Father Brennan," given his mounting legal costs.
Judge Hughes was livid that DeSipio spoke up again. "If you open your mouth one more time I am going to have the sheriff take you out of here," she told DeSipio.
As DeSipio continued to argue, Hughes said she might have him "locked up and held in contempt." Instead she issued a gag order, responding to what she observed as attorneys having "gone to the airways to advocate."
"No more interviews with anyone," the judge ruled.
"Does that include the DA going on Chris Matthews' 'Hardball' and going to the New York Times," defense attorney Michael McGovern asked.
The judge responded affirmatively: "I don't want tweets. I don't want Facebook. I don't want IMs [instant messages]."
Hughes said the court will revisit the gag order on April 15, when defendants are to be arraigned. That date also marks the deadline for the DA to provide the defense with the first batch of discovery, she said.
All but one of the defense attorneys challenged the government's amendment to its case, which added a conspiracy charge that had not explicitly been requested of the grand jury.
"The issue here is that if the DA seeks to amend, it has to be subject to some sort of prima facie determination," the defense argued.
The judge found otherwise, ruling that the commonwealth established "good cause" in its pleadings and that "there is no constitutional right - federal or state - for a preliminary hearing."
It was "a technical error on the commonwealth not to charge conspiracy" originally, Hughes said. "Conspiracy is made," and the defendants will not be afforded a preliminary hearing, she ruled.
Hughes said there was abundant evidence to support the amendment.
"I'm the only person, besides the prosecutors, who has seen every stitch of evidence," she said.
Defense attorney McGovern argued that her admission was precisely the problem.
"Your Honor, this is patently unfair!" McGovern said. "You know the evidence. They know the evidence. I don't know what the evidence is! I haven't seen any!"
The attorney said proceeding to trial without a preliminary hearing was like saying, "Let's have a dart game in a dark room."
"What kind of country is this where we have this?" he shouted.
The judge yelled back, baring her teeth: "You sit down! Sit, sit, sit!"
DeSipio agreed with McGovern that their clients deserve a preliminary hearing, which could allow them to confront their accusers.
"There's no witness. I know that they [the prosecutors] don't like that he's in jail," DeSipio said. "This accuser says there was an erect penis in his buttocks."
"Was it in your buttocks, or was it in your anus," he asked rhetorically. "If that question wasn't asked [of the grand jury], and he didn't specify anus or butt cheeks, I have a right to ask that."
"What you can't do, and what I submit they're trying to do, is say just because we have a grand jury, we have good cause [to by-pass a preliminary hearing]," DeSipio said.
The judge also addressed a potential conflict of interest concerning Monsignor Lynn, who unlike the three current and former priests, faces child endangerment charges - not rape or sexual assault. Plans for the Archdiocese of Philadelphia to pay Lynn's legal costs present "a whole array of conflicts that I can't even imagine at this point in time," Hughes said.
"It's real simple," the judge said to Lynn, who was donning his clerical collar, "your master is the person that's putting bread on the table."
"It may be in your best interest to put forth a defense that attacks other people [or the church]," Hughes said.
She told Lynn he was putting himself in the position of receiving "advice from people who are being paid by people whose interests don't necessarily align with yours."
The stakes of this gamble could amount to "14 years of incarceration versus probation," she said.
Lynn, in a calm voice, declined. "Well, I trust these two men." he said, adding that the church hadn't placed any conditions on the payment of his legal costs.
Hughes was incredulous. "You are making a knowing, voluntary and intelligent decision to place yourself in conflict with your attorneys?" she asked.
"I am," Lynn responded, waiving his right to any future appeal based on the argument that his attorneys had a conflict of interest.
"Then we're moving forward," the judge said.
After arraignments and release of the first batch of discovery, which will include grand jury notes and testimony, on April 15, the government will begin putting together a second batch. The government said that batch would take longer to produce, as it will include roughly 10,000 pages of documentation, much of which will need to be redacted.
Hughes said the government must give the defense a specific timeline for the production of the second batch. "There has to be some finality," she said.
In January, a grand jury returned an indictment for rape and sexual assault against one current priest, one defrocked priest and one man who taught at a Catholic school. Monsignor Lynn, the third cleric who worked for the archdiocese as secretary of clergy, is accused of giving known abusers easy access to minors.
I’m curious . . .
Would
“That post came across as
[pic]
to me.”
been kosher enough, or not?
>> You don’t suppose that if so many ex-Catholics who lived in different areas of the country and never knew each other can relate the same accounts of what goes on in the Catholic church, that there just might be some truth to it? <<
HAHAHAHA!!!
You guys cc each other on literally thousands of posts a week; Alex Murphy and Gamecock apparently spend HOURS a DAY scouring teh news for MSM news stories which cast Catholicism in a bad light. You guys proof-test the entire internet looking for out-of-context quotes to post as evidence for your assertions. And then you expect me to be impressed that “Catholics who lived in different areas of the country and never knew each other” have similar stories???
You have to be joking! What portion of their lives do Gamecock, AM and Dr. Eck spend on FR getting their stories together?
>> If you and other Catholics choose to not believe what really goes in in Catholic churches around the country, <<
Well, we know what goes on in Catholic churches plenty because we actually go to them, unlike your swarm who pull up quotes from the obscurest of sources, while remaining entirely ignorant of the sources. (Gamecock is the funniest when he tries to make Augustine out to be a Calvinist!) And yes, we see a lot that does piss us off, and we post about it on Free Republic, and we strategize how to stop it. But you don’t read those threads because your swarm doesn’t ping you to them.
But what’s hysterical is this:
All these Calvinists here act like we Catholics are so remiss in cleaning up the Catholic Church (even while that’s our primary fixation). And so what are the largest CALVINIST churches: Presbyterian Church USA, a church which actually ENDORSES homosexual relationships, including those between teens and adults. YEah, while you’re ranting and raving about how evil the Catholic church is for mishandling teen-adult homosexual relationships, the PCUSA is blessing them.
Of course, next to the United Church of Christ (the second largest Calvinist denomination) they seem downright first-century. The UCC is ashamed to even call itself Christian.
Let’s see, then there are all these Calvinists who are so proud to call the Church of England “reformed” when discussing how important the C of E was to the founding fathers... but they seem to have nothing to do with it as it presses ahead and promotes homosexuality, abortion, anti-semitism, and so forth.
So while you pcik on us Catholics for fighting (increasingly successfully) to reform (in the REAL meaning of the word) the Catholic Church, you guys must be meeting in denominations that could convene in a broom closet. But no, THIS generation’s Calvinist schism will succeed in repelling liberalism, where the greats like John Edwards failed. How exactly?
Sometimes the thought crosses my mind that the religious threads here serve dual purposes....the second purpose being to keep some of the more aggressive, nasty and whacko posters in cyber-space happily ensconced in one, out-of-the-way, special-category place.
Leni
That would have been fine since it would be speaking of the statement and not the poster, personally.
THX THX
You’re acting like an “observation of fact” means something can’t be personal. And your acting like your statement was actually a fact, not a faulty opinion.
Anyways, I do make an attempt to correct mistakes, admit them, and apologize to others when necessary. Just on this thread, I have admitted a mistake, corrected a mistake, or apologized to another at least five times. Here they are with links:
1) In 204, I apologized to HossB86 for criticizing his posting style/tone, and he later graciously forgave me:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2695139/posts?page=204#204
2) In 422, I admitted I misspoke when saying “God” instead of “Jesus” in the context of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ beliefs:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2695139/posts?page=422#422
3) In 515, I admitted to being confused and accidentally calling Gamecock an OPC member:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2695139/posts?page=515#515
4) In 1051, I admitted that I read Dr. E’s post 1000 to quickly, leading me to make a mistake in agreeing with her post:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2695139/posts?page=1051#1051
5) In 1098, I corrected a mistake in post 1096:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2695139/posts?page=1098#1098
See, it’s not impossible to admit to a mistake and attempt to rectify it. Some people should try doing so.
“What portion of their lives do Gamecock, AM and Dr. Eck spend on FR getting their stories together?”
That’s assuming they’re four different people :)
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Wasn’t the “Smoky Backroom” created for threads that end up like this one?
LOL!! Sure you do - you know it all. You know the judge, all PA officials and why they do things. You might want to focus more on your hat tricks because your mind reading ability is sorely lacking. Or focus on writing understandable posts. You, now, have enough to keep you busy. BTW, you don’t dismiss me - I come as go as I please. “Who the Son sets free, is free indeed”.
When a thread is beyond hope, I usually lock it for "childish behavior."
And I avoid both because trying to get a thread pulled, locked or moved is also sometimes a debate tactic.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
I can’t imagine how the habits could get any worse.
:)
Personally, I think they’ve become an embarrassment to the site and wish that when they reach this level they could be moved someplace less visible.
Thanks, but the thread was already replete with examples.
“The is your mistake - not metmom’s.”
No, it’s metmom’s.
“Being careless can’t be someone else’s fault.”
Metmom’s carelessness was her fault, if it actually was carelessness.
“Here’s how you posted it...
And that last one is the kicker — Mediatrix? Really? Where in scripture did God say this? So..... “
NO where is there any indication it was someone else’s words.”
You dishonestly quote me out of context and then claim that there was no indication that it was someone else’s words when I did use quotation marks to indicate they were someone else’s words. At any rate, if there was any confusion, metmom could have easily referred back to the previous post where she would again have seen that those were Hoss’s words. At any rate, I have asked metmom three times already to apologize for her mistake, and now it will be the fourth. Metmom, I will accept an apology if you admit your mistake, apologize, and ping all the others who you pinged to your false statement to your apology.
“You owe metmom an apology for taunting her for your own mistake or sloppiness in posting.”
You owe me an apology for saying this is my mistake, for saying that I was the one being careless, for dishonestly quoting me out of context, and for claiming that there was no indication that it was someone else’s words.
Here is the link to 944, where metmom made the false statement that she has not yet retracted, despite given multiple opportunities:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2695139/posts?page=944#944
And here is the post metmom falsely used as evidence:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2695139/posts?page=944#944
It’s extremely foolish to think you can get away with dishonestly quoting me out of context and lying about my post when I have the links right here and everyone can see them.
I understand that I may have been out of line with that one.
My bad.
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.