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.
Get a load of what they're doing to the woman who accused Father Corapi of sexual assault and drug addiction...
The move was in reaction to a letter by a former employee of the media company sent to several bishops and claiming that Corapi was addicted to drugs and sexually involved with multiple women. Bobbi Ruffatto, Vice President of Operations at Santa Cruz Media, Inc., said in a statement Friday that the only evidence against Corapi thus far is “the unsubstantiated rant of a former employee, who, after losing her job with this office, physically assaulted me and another employee and promised to ‘destroy’ Father Corapi.”"A leader of the company that manages Rev. John Corapi’s media has claimed that the recent accusations against the popular priest were launched by a “disgruntled” former employee who vowed to “destroy” Corapi’s reputation...
Nevermind that Corapi was supposedly involved with "several women."
They will try to destroy this woman. Can't have anyone tarnishing the reputation of an "alter Christus."
And Roman Catholic apologists wonder why men and boys hesitate to come forward publicly after being assaulted by pederast priests.
How many RC comments have we seen about these stories that put "victims" in quotes? Just about all of them.
Your own doctrines also derive from those folks. They were not heretics.
One of America's foremost religious analysts was John Leland (who wrote, with James Madison, the First Amendment).
He differed with most Protestants of his time on the question of SUNDAY SCHOOL and congregational missionaries. His views were essentially identical to that of the Orthodox and pretty doggone similar to the RCC.
I think Sunday School is great, and if a congregation wants to sponsor a foreign mission that's great too. So, I differ with an ancestor who helped found an entire religious movement (where I remain a member) ~ amazing isn't it.
You managed to cherry pick what I wrote to lead people to believe I do not condemn abuse. Try not to do that. I was very clear to state that I agreed with the concerns expressed by Turtlepower (?). I also in other posts in this thread said I wanted all the evidence allowed by law to be reviewed by the jury and if that lead to a guilty verdict so be it.
The fact of abuse does not change fact that many are using it as a means to condemn the Catholic Church and Catholics for Catholic beliefs and teachings.
What is this?
My denomination is bigger than yours, so nyah!!!!
Might doesn’t make right.
Matthew 7:13-14 “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.
Actually, that would only make them a Catholic heretic. Not all Catholics are Christians and not all Christians are Catholic.
Be careful to not conflate the two.
I usually concede that Catholics are Christians whether they are or not. That’s a personal matter between them and God. I am not God nor am I a pope.
First it lists priests accused of abuse. Not convicted. Most of the allegations I believe were probably true. But some are not. Convictions and settlements are spelled out in the profiles. Secondly very few of them were actually cases of priests abusing somebody while they were active chaplains. Usually what happened is that earlier accusations came to light while the priests were serving in the military. Not all transfers to military service were to hide the abusive priests. But that is not what the introductory paragraph on Bishop Accountability leads one to believe. It wants you to believe that these priests were abusing serviceman and/or their families. Yes some were guilty of that. However most were guilty of or accused of earlier crimes. Those crimes mostly did not come to light till years later. As is typical in these cases.
There is enough real guilt that I don’t understand the need to imply that U.S. serviceman are unsafe because of Catholic Chaplains.
It boggles the mind to be presented with such ignorance.
You know nothing of Father Corapi and should be ashamed for assuming all allegations are true.
I was rereading the body of the thread and was struck by this.....
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."
I noticed that the lawyer didn't deny the facts the judge stated, but rather that he was incensed that someone told on him. "How dare they send you a letter about that," DeSipio said, referring to the district attorney's office.
How dare they indeed.
You know, during the trial of the NYC WTC bombers, when they were trying the guys who were accused of the bombing, the person who worked for the truck rental place was asked who rented the vehicle and threw the courtroom into an uproar when he pointed out someone in the jury box.
Nice way to either load the jury or declare a mistrial.
In this case, because the defense lawyer himself was so closely connected to the situation, it should have, by all rights, disqualified him from being connected with the case in a conflict of interest.
It seems that what bothered him the most is that some ratted on him and exposed what he knew all along.
I wouldn't be surprised to find out that it was intentional. That way, the whole thing would have to start over from scratch, giving more opportunity for it to be dropped on some technicality.
The proof is in the pudding. By the way if you are going to quote me do so in context so that you do not change the overall meaning of my posts or my opinion. Stop being dishonest.
The dirty little secret is that the Roman Catholic church despises the middle class.
What a shame it is to see Christians use lies as evangelical tools. It's reminiscent of the Islamic allowance for lying under certain situations.
The point was that you stated “Terminological consistency requires that a Protestant to be a real Christian heritic first have been a Catholic.”
There’s a difference between being a Christian heretic and a Catholic heretic. One can be labeled a heretic by the Catholic church because someone goes against the teachings of the Catholic church, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t Christians.
Christian and Catholic are not synonymous.
To be correct in terminology would be to label a Protestant who is a former Catholic not as a *Christian heretic*, but rather as a *Catholic heretic*. Protestants can be Christians too.
I am a Christian who was baptized and raised as a Catholic. Catholics can say I’m a Catholic heretic all they want, and I’ll still sleep tonight. Calling me a Christian heretic is patently untrue, but I’ll still sleep tonight because I know who I believe and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I’ve committed to Himself.
It doesn’t matter what man thinks of me. What counts is what God thinks of me.
I don’t want any action by the judge, the prosecutor or the defense team to lead to a conviction being overturned on appeal. That is my concern with the conduct of all parties. I do think the Judge was way out of line. If the defense had not seen the allegations regarding his time in seminary he has every right to be upset.
But the important thing is if guilty verdicts are overturned it is the victims who suffer. I want the trials to be like Caeser’s wife. If the jury finds any of the priests guilty I want that verdict to stick and for full sentences to be carried out.
“Nobody needs to *defame* the Catholic church.”
Yes, but they do it anyway.
“The church has done plenty all by its lonesome to defame itself.”
No, it hasn’t.
“Then it could rightly say that it’s all slander and lies.”
Much of it is. There is also a lot of selective coverage.
“Martyrdom only works when someone has done nothing wrong.”
Does that mean Jesus is the only martyr then?
“No, I didn’t.”
Yes, you did.
“You implied you were a giraffe.”
No, I didn’t.
“This is heretical.”
By definition, nothing the Church believes can be heretical.
Just because someone has heretical beliefs doesn’t mean they’re all bad.
On the contrary, there have been many great people who have held heretical beliefs.
“What is this?
My denomination is bigger than yours, so nyah!!!!”
I can’t believe you’re saying this. On second though, yes I can.
Anyways, I said the fact that there are more Catholic threads on the religious forum than any other “denomination” could be explained by the fact that there are more Catholics than members of any other “denomination” in America and the world.
That shouldn’t have been an issue, but you were the one who disputed that, so here I am defending the fact that there are more Catholics than members of any other denomination.
It’s not ignorance.
These people know full well that they are lying.
BTW, Cronos, if you want ridiculous quotes from Protestants on your about page, this thread is a goldmine.
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.