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.
The defense lawyer blew a gasket. Totally out of line and unprofessional conduct.
He should be disqualified on that alone.
Even if he didn’t know anyone who claimed to be abused, the fact that he attended the seminary should be enough to disqualify him for conflict of interest.
Not that the defense would ever want to compromise the trial or delay the trial or confuse the trial or subvert the trial. Nah.
Let's think about this for a moment. Either the defense attorney was a seminarian at the same time and same place the abuse was occurring or he wasn't. That's not too difficult to discern.
And if it is true that he did attend the same seminary at the same time when the abuse took place, don't you think that's a pretty salient fact he should have disclosed so as to avoid a mistrial down the line?
That's like saying school boards intentionally hire molesters.
That could be really handy!
The Roman church attempted to temporize with homosexuals in their priesthood and it blew up in their face. I think that this churches experience presages what will happen to the rest of society when homosexuals are placed in positions of authority over boys in schools, the scouts and even young men in the military.
“the RCC intentionally hatches homosexuals”
Can you elaborate on this a little more or give some proof?
In the military, I think the homos are going to get their butts beaten by young recruits and non-coms. This whole queer thing is DOA with the Marines.
You could hand me a million dollars and you would still be an anti-Catholic bigot.
The military will oppress the normals. Anyone complaining about homosexual harrassment will be disciplined.
They get what they want. They always have.
And most of the sexual abuse by priests for centuries has been priests raping young boys who, in turn, are scarred for life by such an ungodly breach of trust.
And still they refuse to repent and sin no more.
I think there will be open defiance. 95% of the military already despises their so-called commander-in-chief. If nothing else, watch enlistment plummet.
Not the fact that this defense attorney most likely attended the same seminary at the same time the alleged sexual abuse was going on?
Facts like that are convenient to be kept hidden until such time as one would want a mistrial to be called. Say in about a year or so, as the trial is concluding and the guilt of the defendants is about to be declared.
“Rome wants men who prefer the company of other men to women and children.”
Can you give any proof of this? Are there any papal documents outlining why homosexuals are preferred in the “priescraft”?
The guilty ones should have their testicles removed using a branch trimmer or a tin scissors. Just make sure they are guilty, and the accusation isn't the proof.
I attended a seminary for four years during a time when I have read homsexuallity was rampant in United Staes seminaries. I must have been mightily unattractive because I was never propositioned a single time by priest or student.
The same holds true during my altar boy years. Our pastor had a contrary personality and went through about six curates in the eight years of my grade school days. Not one of them made untoward advances, although I discovered years later that one of them, incidentally my favorite of those days, died of AIDS. He didn't get it in a blood transfusion. The rumor was he picked it up from adults.
The long and short of it is, even the homosexual, or the one I learned was, and all the rest were basically decent men as far as I can tell. Many of them worked long and hard to drill an education into me.
I realize my story is anecdotal. I simply refuse to believe the majority or even a large minority or Catholic priests are living breathing Lucifers. The bad ones should be strung up. Bishops we can prove to be enablers should be strung up along side them.
I just know the accusation isn't proof.
One of the stupidest things I've ever read on here.
Incredible, just incredible
RC apologists love to send others off on “evidence” gathering. But what we’ve seen time and again is that NO evidence is ENOUGH evidence.
Rome draws men who prefer the company of other men to the company of women and children. If it didn’t, it would call men who were married with children to act as shepherds for the flock.
Instead, Rome gets what it wants. Men dressed up in women’s clothing and red Prada shoes and bejeweled headgear who think of themselves as “another Christ” and who corrupt the children in their care.
Yes, that's a sorry thing to say.
Because it's not a "hard to get a handle on."
Roman Catholic priests rape children in their care because the "celibate" priesthood calls men who prefer the company of other men to the company of women and children.
And has for centuries.
This judge also gave a waring to the Monsignor that his interest could be compromised by having attorneys of the Dioceses ..and he declared he was fine with his "team" ..that removes very nicely that issue for a retrial ... This judge is taking all mistrial issues off the table ..smart woman
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.