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.
lol. Check your Strunk and White. No comma after errors.
Your error was in forgetting to include the quotation marks.
The PCUSA is more or less a democrat organization so I expect it to happen eventually.
Exactly.
As we've seen time and again, NO information is ENOUGH information for some RCs who prefer to ignore all negative data and expect the rest of us to do likewise.
They never refute with facts; just more crabbing.
Why? If the past is prelude, you will simply ignore that evidence and ask for more, just as you have repeatedly done.
After 20 or 30 times around the block, people don't take your kind of dissembling posts seriously, Mark.
If so, it will only hasten the complete destruction of a once great denomination, now mired in apostasy and Scriptural error.
You: “Check your Strunk and White.”
Me: From Strunk & White:
“Enclose parenthetic expressions between commas.
The best way to see a country, unless you are pressed for time, is to travel on foot.
This rule is difficult to apply; it is frequently hard to decide whether a single word, such as however, or a brief phrase, is or is not parenthetic. If the interruption to the flow of the sentence is but slight, the writer may safely omit the commas. But whether the interruption be slight or considerable, he must never omit one comma and leave the other. Such punctuation as
Marjorie’s husband, Colonel Nelson paid us a visit yesterday,
or
My brother you will be pleased to hear, is now in perfect health,
is indefensible.
Non-restrictive relative clauses are, in accordance with this rule, set off by commas.
The audience, which had at first been indifferent, became more and more interested.
Similar clauses introduced by where and when are similarly punctuated.
In 1769, when Napoleon was born, Corsica had but recently been acquired by France.
Nether Stowey, where Coleridge wrote The Rime of the Ancient Mariner, is a few miles from Bridgewater.
In these sentences the clauses introduced by which, when, and where are non-restrictive; they do not limit the application of the words on which they depend, but add, parenthetically, statements supplementing those in the principal clauses. Each sentence is a combination of two statments which might have been made independently.
The audience was at first indifferent. Later it became more and more interested.
Napoleon was born in 1769. At that time Corsica had but recently been acquired by France.
Coleridge wrote The Rime of the Ancient Mariner at Nether Stowey. Nether Stowey is only a few miles from Bridgewater.
Restrictive relative clauses are not set off by commas.
The candidate who best meets these requirements will obtain the place.
In this sentence the relative clause restricts the application of the word candidate to a single person. Unlike those above, the sentence cannot be split into two independent statements.
The abbreviations etc. and jr. are always preceded by a comma, and except at the end of a sentence, followed by one.
Similar in principle to the enclosing of parenthetic expressions between commas is the setting off by commas of phrases or dependent clauses preceding or following the main clause of a sentence. The sentences quoted in this section and under Rules 4, 5, 6, 7, 16, and 18 should afford sufficient guidance.
If a parenthetic expression is preceded by a conjunction, place the first comma before the conjunction, not after it.
He saw us coming, and unaware that we had learned of his treachery, greeted us with a smile.”
http://www.bartleby.com/141/strunk.html#3
You: “No comma after errors.”
Me: There should be. You are supposed to enclose parenthetical expressions between commas.
You: “Your error was in forgetting to include the quotation marks.”
Me: In which post?
You’ve obviously never worked on a newspaper.
The PCUSA even pays for PARTIAL BIRTH abortions for their pastors and families, no questions asked.
The democrat hierarchy of the PCUSA in Louisville has already destroyed itself. Nancy Pelosi would fit right in.
Mark, while I esteem your desire for open data sets, and i found that Pew offers such, (http://pewresearch.org/databank/datasets/) it is your assertion of bias, equating such to anti-Catholic Calvinists due to its conclusions, and which imaginatively presumes favoritism of politically conservative evangelicals, that lacks proof and credulity, despite the general media bias.
Resorting to charging all such as part of a conspiracy against Catholics is not unexpected, and since such studies also testify to an increasing declension of evangelicals, we could be tempted to do the same.
It also seems that you yourself have invoked statistics, and your demanding standard is not shared by RCs who quote stats which show things which make Protestants look badly. And if that were overall the case, i do not think i would find RCs questioning their veracity.
And rather than showing great disparity, an overall uniformity is evidenced Catholic studies show Catholics as more liberal. If you find stats that overall show the opposite, then let me know. I have not.
No I haven't. You know, most newspapers have a liberal slant...
Can you point out my mistakes? I'm sure I have some on this thread.
Utterly depraved.
Mabye the RM would be kind enough to edit that very unfortunate acronym for you.
Please strike my dumb #1252!!!! Now!!!!!!
Oh good grief!!! Fat fingers strikes again!!!!
What a time to take a break, lol. It’ll be edited or removed soon enough.
Everybody makes spelling blunders and typos once in a while, so don’t feel badly about it. That’s a humdinger though.
ain’t no sense doin’ little things!
No, I haven't. Have you?
“However, it’s not lost on me that the FR religious category seems to attract a core number of the good, the bad and the obsessive, so it’s obviously popular in spite of (or maybe because of) the ugly infighting and attacks on each others’ faiths.....and, because I’m a cupcake, I can only say to the perpetual combatants “go with God”, to each his own, and enjoy whatever floats your ark.”
Bravo! Excellent analysis throughout and right on point. Too many of the so-called religious threads are nothing more than mud-slinging events of my religion is better than yours. Or just plain hateful. Shows the immaturity of the posters rather than anything about the merits of the various religions. Slings and arrows, that is what so many of the “debates” degenerate into. Too bad, because the topic of religion is fascinating, the religious wars on these threads is not.
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.