Conviction Overturned for Church Official Accused of Covering Up Abuse

[cbayer]

I generally don't comment, but I think this is a tragedy. It appears to have been overturned on a technicality and that he really is guilty of what he has been accused of.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/27/us/conviction-overturned-for-church-official-accused-of-covering-up-abuse.html?_r=0

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: December 26, 2013

PHILADELPHIA — A Pennsylvania appeals court on Thursday overturned the child-endangerment conviction of a Roman Catholic official, in the first court case where a senior church member was found guilty of covering up sexual abuses by priests under his supervision.

The unanimous decision by the state Superior Court dismissed the criminal case against the church official, Msgr. William J. Lynn, who had been sentenced to three to six years.

Monsignor Lynn was convicted in June 2012 after prosecutors charged that he had reassigned priests who preyed on children to new parishes in Philadelphia when he was secretary for clergy. The conviction stemmed from a case against another priest, Edward V. Avery, whom Monsignor Lynn transferred to a parish in Northeast Philadelphia despite a complaint of sexual abuse.

During the trial, prosecutors presented evidence that he had shielded predatory priests, sometimes transferring them to unwary parishes, and that he had lied to the public to avoid bad publicity and lawsuits.

more at link

[hrmjustin]

1. This stinks because people were looking at this as a test case to go after the bishops for covering

this stuff up.

[cbayer]

2. I agree. It sends the message that they are going to be exonerated

and that is wrong, imo.

[Cleita]

3. I hope this doesn't establish a precedent. The pervert

Priests and their enablers need to be convicted and punished for the lives they have ruined.

[cbayer]

4. I don't really understand the technicalities, but it appears to be

a loophole in the PA law. So I would guess that it will set a precedent in PA, but not elsewhere.

But I'm not really sure.

[hedgehog]

5. While I'm all in favor of prosecuting those who covered up for predators in the last 30 some years,

technicalities are there to protect all of us.

"The Superior Court never addressed that concern or other alleged trial errors, concluding the charges themselves were flawed because Lynn was charged under an endangerment law adopted after he left his church post.
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/20131226_ap_6fc826c0a0e54e34b0afc92fe4aec6d2.html#7yHpUEHVy6eRmMKD.99


He was charged under a law enacted after he'd engaged in a cover-up. If a teenager is in the car while his buddy is in the store shooting at the clerk, he is held liable as an accessory to the crime. Surely a good prosecutor can find the appropriate charge for this matter.


( I set my limit for prosecuting cover-ups to about 30 years ago because I think before then on the whole we didn't understand how pedophiles manipulate both their victims and any concerned adults)

[cbayer]

6. Thanks for that info, hedgehog.

I understand that their are reasons for technicalness and the one that lets someone off may also be the one that protects someone who is otherwise innocent.

I'm just sorry that this particular case is being resolved in this way.

[hedgehog]

7. As I said, there must be other statutes out there that would cover this -

RICO maybe?

[cbayer]

9. Can they retry him with different charges?

[okasha]

14. They should be able to, and should.

As long as it's not the same charge, double jeopardy doesn't apply. There can be civil suits, too.

[cbayer]

15. It will be interesting to see whether they pursue that course.

I really hate to see this guy walk.

[goldent]

8. I don't remember a whole lot from my high school government class

but this does sound like a clear case of ex post facto law - I am surprised the original judge denied this argument, but emotion does play a part. I'd say this is more than a technicality, but if the story is true it does sound like justice was not done, from a moral viewpoint.

[skepticscott]

10. Well, if the law he was charged under was enacted ex post facto

that's more than just a technicality. But it's rather amazing that both the prosecutor and the defense attorney would have missed something so elementary.

[jberryhill]

11. Darn that Constitutuion and its "technicalities"

One would almost think it was written to make it hard for the government to lock up people.

[cbayer]

12. That's not really the point, imo.

While it appears that the court made the "correct" ruling, it is an unfortunate outcome in this case.

I understand that legal protections from unwarranted prosecution are very important things.

[trotsky]

13. If only the pious men who run his church...

had reported these crimes and dealt with the criminals appropriately, none of this would have been necessary. And so many victims could have been spared.