Philadelphia priest sex scandal verdict overturned

[redheadbaker]

Legal experts expect this could have major implications on the case against 3 Penn State administrators

philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2013/12/29/monsignor-lynn-case-could-impact-jerry-sandusky-scandal/

PHILADELPHIA (CBS) — Monsignor William Lynn, the Philadelphia archdiocesan official who has been jailed for more than a year for shuffling predator priests among parishes, had his conviction reversed on Thursday. Legal experts predict the decision will have major implications for the criminal case against three Penn State administrators connected to the Jerry Sandusky scandal.


A superior court judge ruled that Monsignor Lynn should not have been retroactively charged for child endangerment under a 2007 law because his actions took place in the 1990′s.


“You can’t be convicted of something if at the time you would have done it it wasn’t against the law,” says James Funt, a criminal defense attorney and partner at Greenblatt, Pierce, Engle, Funt & Flores.


He says the appeals ruling striking Lynn’s conviction could result in dismissal of some of the child endangerment charges against former Penn State president Graham Spanier, former VP Gary Schultz and former athletic director Tim Curley- who are charged under the same law. Prosecutors say the trio failed to report a sexual abuse claim against Jerry Sandusky in 2001 through 2008, endangering boys for more than seven years.


“The timeframes that they are being accused of both predate 2007 and are after 2007,” says Funt, “So I think it’ll have a significant impact, but I don’t think it will kill the case “


Funt says the case would continue since Spanier, Schultz and Curley also other changes, including perjury and obstruction of justice.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More detailed article about the reversal of the Lynn verdict: 

online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303345104579282473952990990

Court Reverses Philadelphia Monsignor's Conviction

A landmark criminal conviction of a Roman Catholic monsignor imprisoned for his handling of sexual-abuse allegations was overturned Thursday by a Pennsylvania appeals court.

A three-judge Superior Court panel ordered the release of Msgr. William Lynn, the first U.S. Catholic official ever convicted of a criminal charge related to the alleged coverup of sexual abuse of minors by other priests.



Msgr. Lynn, who served in the Philadelphia Archdiocese as a top aide to its archbishop, could be released as early as this week, his lawyer said. He already has served 18 months of a three-to-six-year sentence after a Pennsylvania jury last year found him guilty of child endangerment for allowing a priest accused of sexual abuse to continue to have contact with children.



In overturning his conviction, the court said it "cannot dispute" that there "was more than adequate evidence" presented at trial showing that Msgr. Lynn "prioritized the Archdiocese's reputation over the safety of potential victims of sexually abusive priests."



But, the court said, that wasn't sufficient to prove that Msgr. Lynn was guilty of child endangerment or had "specific information that [the accused priest] intended or was preparing to molest...any other child."



"I'm gratified and happy," said Msgr. Lynn's lawyer, Thomas Bergstrom, adding that the archdiocese has been supportive of Msgr. Lynn, who hopes to remain with the church "and fulfill some priestly duty" once released.



Msgr. Lynn wasn't accused of abusing children himself.



Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams said he would "most likely" appeal Thursday's decision. "I am disappointed and strongly disagree with the court's decision," he said in a statement released through a spokeswoman.



Mr. Williams can appeal to the full Superior Court. After that, the case could go to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.



Mr. Bergstrom said a trial-court judge can release Msgr. Lynn even with an appeal pending or under way. A spokeswoman for the district attorney, however, said Msgr. Lynn would remain in prison during any appeal.



The case is being closely watched, as other Catholic leaders are under scrutiny for their handling of the abuse scandal that has roiled the church for years. Critics are especially angry at the documented shuffling of abusive priests to new posts in different dioceses.



In recent years, dozens of dioceses have released thousands of documents detailing abuse stretching back decades as victims have come forward to sue.



It was unclear what impact, if any, Thursday's decision would have on other cases or potential prosecutions of church leaders. After the Archdiocese of Los Angeles released new documents this year showing church officials' alleged attempts to shield abusive priests from law enforcement, the L.A. district attorney's office said it would review the files and examine the responses of top officials.



On Thursday, the L.A. district attorney's office said it was still reviewing the files. No criminal charges have been filed.



Abuse victims lamented Thursday's decision, saying it would send a message that church leaders won't be held responsible. "This ruling gives corrupt Catholic officials encouragement to continue deceiving police, stonewalling prosecutors, ignoring victims, destroying evidence, fabricating alibis, hiding crimes, and protecting pedophiles," said David Clohessy, director of Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests.



Critics of such prosecutions welcomed the decision. "These rapacious lawyers who want to get a bishop are really going to have to think twice about this," said Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, a conservative Catholic group.



The Philadelphia Archdiocese said Thursday it had "expressed a hope that the nature of the sentence imposed on Monsignor Lynn would be objectively reviewed. That has happened."



The archdiocese added that the decision "does not and will not alter the Church's commitment to assist and support the survivors of sexual abuse toward healing or our dedicated efforts to ensure that all young people in our care are safe."



Msgr. Lynn still faces civil suits by abuse victims who claim he should be held responsible, along with the alleged abusers. Those cases won't be affected by the court's decision, said Marci Hamilton, a lawyer representing the victims in the civil suits, and a professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo Law School at Yeshiva University. "It's a ruling on a technicality on a criminal charge," she said.



Msgr. Lynn has denied responsibility for the suffering of alleged victims in the civil suits, his lawyer said.

[downtoearth]

Wait, there were no child endangerment laws pre 2000's? Why couldn't they convict him on general child endangerment?

"A superior court judge ruled that Monsignor Lynn should not have been retroactively charged for child endangerment under a 2007 law because his actions took place in the 1990′s.

“You can’t be convicted of something if at the time you would have done it it wasn’t against the law,” says James Funt, a criminal defense attorney and partner at Greenblatt, Pierce, Engle, Funt & Flores."

[IIOY]

Dec 30, 2013 12:31:45 GMT -5 downtoearth said:

Wait, there were no child endangerment laws pre 2000's? Why couldn't they convict him on general child endangerment?

"A superior court judge ruled that Monsignor Lynn should not have been retroactively charged for child endangerment under a 2007 law because his actions took place in the 1990′s.

“You can’t be convicted of something if at the time you would have done it it wasn’t against the law,” says James Funt, a criminal defense attorney and partner at Greenblatt, Pierce, Engle, Funt & Flores."

The laws existed but were applicable to a narrow group of individuals who supervised children that did not include a religious leader in Lynn's position.

[sushi]

Were those religious leaders specifically exempted? Or were the people addressed by the law narrowly defined?

[redheadbaker]

Dec 30, 2013 13:41:59 GMT -5 sushi said:

Were those religious leaders specifically exempted? Or were the people addressed by the law narrowly defined?

The defense argued that the pre-2007 was narrowly defined as applying to only parents and caregivers.