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.
Nobody ever said it was.
I'll repeat it again for anyone unbiased enough to read a non-Catholic opinion without reading into it what they want.
Everyone recognizes that abuse is going to happen. It's virtually impossible to prevent.
That's not the issue here or in the trial. The problem is that the abuse was known and nothing was done about it except measures to protect the priests. They weren't disciplined, or defrocked, or turned over to the authorities. They were covered up and moved around and basically given access to fresh game.
Sexual abuse has been an issue in the Catholic church for over a thousand years. Just how long are people expected to not speak up about it? How long are people expected to wait for something to be done?
In non-Catholic situations, say, public schools for example, the perps are arrested and charged and the districts participate with the authorities in seeing justice done. It's a sad state of affairs that the Catholic church cannot do as well as public schools in addressing the issue of abusers in their midst.
THAT'S the issue.
If the Catholic church had acted appropriately when abuse was found out, nobody would have anything to criticize them for. All the flak they're taking is their own fault. They have no one to blame but themselves.
***THAT’S the issue.***
Amazing how FRoman Catholics insist that this is Catholic bashing. Kindda makes you wonder....
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?
They sure would have liked that, wouldn't they?
I can't believe for a minute that the defense attorney didn't realize that. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that having him as the attorney was part of the plan all along, just for a contingency. They HAD to know that he had attended the seminary. He had to know that that would be a conflict of interest and cause a mistrial. If he didn't, he has no business being a lawyer.
That probably explains why he blew a gasket over the issue and tried to make it personal.
It all fits in with what I’ve known the vatican cesspool to be since my childhood.
It is the most antichrist body on Earth.
.
An abomination!
Our Lord Jesus Christ would never have made that vile “three finger salute” even by accident.
Just like every other “icon.”
So, is your argument that the celibate priesthood is evidence that “Rome” wants homosexual priests?
What is your explanation for the fact that Eastern Catholic Churches allow married priests and the fact that the Latin Rite allows for married priests in certain situations?
Thx for the pings.
How can that not be uppermost in the minds of every single Roman Catholic in this country?
Their children are being destroyed and all they can muster is a prayer for protection of these priests.
>> “Amazing how FRoman Catholics insist that this is Catholic bashing. Kindda makes you wonder....” <<
.
Its a catholic ‘tradition.’
Don’t they have a right to their traditions? (@*#^%&*@#)
When Rome does away with its ludicrous “celibacy” requirement, Rome hopefully will attract less homosexuals.
Until then, Rome gets what it wants.
"Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit." -- Matthew 7:16-18
What men defend and uphold and protect and promote, they get more of.
Historical literature and even historical accounts certainly contain enough evidence that the unmarried priesthood of the Roman Catholic Church has long been a haven for men who are attracted to men, and men who are attracted to boys, WPaCon. Archaic terms for such like catamite and sodomite are not at all difficult to find, even pertaining to individuals highly placed in the hierarchy, right up to certain medieval Popes themselves. That the Eastern Catholic Churches and certain Latin Rite Churches permit marriage only points out the fallacy and folly of Rome’s insistence upon it.
Even the bozo defense attorney in this article falls back on the old “Catholic-bashing” defense.
They need a new drug.
When pederasts they are found to be in Protestant churches, they are usually turned over to police authorities, tried and convicted if guilty.
They are not protected, hidden nor promoted, as they are in the RCC.
And further, the cases you cite are from a dozen states.
37 Roman Catholic priests suspected of pederasty in one city in one diocese.
My argument is not over whether there are homosexuals in the priesthood, but whether “Rome” wants homosexuals in the priesthood.
Amen.
Prove it, GC.
Here, perhaps, is a sobering thought for you; how do you know?
lol. Same old/same old. A defensive, empty whine must be part of being "properly catechized."
And just who let them in?
Mant FRoman Catholics seem to think gay priests have been around for quite some time.
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.