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 want to know which anti-Catholic here is Michael Stone:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2696029/posts
if the Catholic church tells is congregants what to think and say....explain teddy kennedy, nancy pelosi, joe biden....and we KNOW they ignore the church.....
sorry, you are just plain wrong on this.
Your own words.....
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2695139/posts?page=650#650
And that last one is the kicker — Mediatrix? Really? Where in scripture did God say this? So..... “
You can't feign ignorance when your own words are in black and white.
The Catholic church teaches it plainly in the Catechism of the Catholic church and it's not to be found anywhere in Scripture.
Why does the Catholic church make up stuff about Mary and teach it as fact when it's not true?
Those are Hoss’s words, not mine. I was quoting him. I would accept an apology if you give me one.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2695139/posts?page=650#650
The cases here involve something he might have known about in some manner at seminary, and that "something" would necessarily involve sexual assaults on children!
Else, what is it we are discussing?
The lawyer knew instantly what the judge said ~ so,Doc, I think you are more engaged in your attack on the RCC than this case.
So, why is it you are so cold regarding the disposition of the victims.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2650195/posts
Basically, HTML uses the little arrow keys.
You use this < > and whatever you stick in there is what you get.
If you put an i in for italics, you get italics
If you put an b in for bold, you get bold
If you put an s in for strike out, you get strikeout
If you put an u in for underline, you get underlined
If you put an blink in for blink, you get
If you put an p in for prargraphs, you get a paragraph.
You can do the same with colors by putting the words font color=#FF0000, for example and you'll get red
If you add a b designation you can get a bold red
For everything except paragraphs, you put the little arrows with the code before the word and after the word to tell the software to end it you put a / in front of the word. Paragraphs don't need to be ended the same way as everything else. If you forget to put in the /, it doesn't close the HTML and everything following it will be whatever it is you're trying to do, if that makes any sense.
So to start italics, you put in the i and to end the italics, you put in a /i.
You cannot leave any spaces in the thing, between the arrows and letters. It won't work.
It takes some experimenting and practice but is not hard to get down. Even someone who is as computer challenged as I can learn it eventually.
We have a winner.
AMEN! While Protestant denominations may disagree over some aspects of doctrine, we all agree that God's word is the final authority. And so we study Scripture "to see if this be so."
You wonder how some could be SO clueless but then, again, liberals are.
Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them." -- John 12:38-40 "That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?
Hence, using the term "fallen" with regard to Mary suggests powerfully that the writer of the piece, for all his claims of Biblical inerrancy, is actually not a believer himself.
Hence, using the term "fallen" with regard to Mary suggests powerfully that the writer of the piece, for all his claims of Biblical inerrancy, is actually not a believer himself.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/father-lies-work-when-critics-scandal-an
Satan—‘Father of Lies’—at Work When Critics of Scandal are Ridiculed, Says Vatican’s American Chief Justice
Sorry. I don’t understand your comment.
I believe in Jesus and am Catholic. Do I have eternal life?Guess it depends on what you mean by believe.
Thank you.
Wow. That is the broadest non sequitur I've seen on this thread yet.
So, why is it you are so cold regarding the disposition of the victims.
lol. Show me where I've exhibited a disregard for the victims of pederast priests.
Is this all you've got? Have you figured out why you're saying the judge is implying the defense attorney is a child molester?
The standard Catholic beliefs about Him, such as Him being fully God, fully man, the Second Person of the Trinity, co-equal and co-eternal with the Father and the Holy Spirit, etc.
I am too. Shouldn’t you get busy??
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.