BishopAccountability.org
	Attorney-Client Relations Examined By Michael P. Mayko The Connecticut Post July 27, 2007 http://www.connpost.com/localnews/ci_6482745 Bridgeport — A judge's ruling in a case involving a prominent Fairfield County defense lawyer accused of destroying a client's computer containing child pornography could affect the way lawyers deal with their clients in the future. At least that's what several dozen members of the Connecticut Criminal Defense Lawyer's Association believe. So on Friday, they packed Senior U.S. District Judge Alan H. Nevas' courtroom in a show of support for a motion to dismiss an obstruction of justice and destruction of evidence charge against Philip D. Russell, 48, of Stamford Road, Stamford. After hearing nearly two hours of argument, Nevas reserved decision on the motion, choosing, instead, to set a Sept. 6 jury selection date for Russell's trial. Michael Fitzpatrick, a past president of the Connecticut Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, said the issue before Nevas "transcends this case." "What happens here will affect the way all lawyers handle client problems," he said. "If the judge resolves this case in favor of the government, it means from that day forward lawyers are going to be walking around on pins and needles." Russell is accused of destroying the child-pornography-filled computer belonging to the music director of Christ Church in Greenwich, where President George H.W. Bush and members of his family worshipped. During the lengthy hearing Friday, Assistant U.S. Attorney Peter Jongbloed told the judge and the standing room only courtroom that the government "did not single out any lawyer — we charged a lawyer who possessed a computer that he should not have destroyed." Moira Buckley, who argued on behalf of the association, said an adverse ruling could lead to attorneys being forced to incriminate their clients "in an effort to avoid being charged with obstruction themselves." The laptop belonged to Robert Tate, 64, of Riverside. The former music director has pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography and is awaiting sentence. He is expected to testify against Russell. Meanwhile, Robert Casale, Russell's lawyer, entered not guilty pleas on his client's behalf to the two charges, both of which carry a maximum 20-year prison term. Casale maintained that at the time the computer was destroyed, Russell had no knowledge that law enforcement wanted it. "The last thing the church wanted was law enforcement involvement," Casale said. "The church wanted to avoid a scandal." The indictment alleges that on Oct. 7, 2006, a church employee who was using Tate's laptop discovered several images of naked boys." Church leaders seized the computer, sealed it and contacted Russell. On Oct. 9, 2006, Russell and two church officials met with Tate who acknowledged he placed the images on the computer. As a result, he immediately resigned from the church, which allowed him to remove personal items, including additional child pornography from his church-owned apartment. The church then made arrangements for him to travel to California. Russell retained possession of the laptop and destroyed it. Casale claimed that to retain possession of a computer with child pornography on it would be a crime. But Nevas fired back that "a lawyer certainly could see that an official proceeding would ensue. He knew this computer contained images of children engaged in terrible acts." Nevas also maintained that, under state law, certain people like doctors, teachers and clergymen are required to inform law enforcement authorities of evidence of child abuse. "The victims are the children depicted in these images," the judge said. Jongbloed agreed the church's clergy should have reported what they discovered. "No question about it," he said. "No one had a clue at the time whether these naked little boys were parishioners of the church, choir boys of the church or someone sitting over in Yugoslavia or Russia." "We don't know if Mr. Russell advised the church they were a mandated reporter," Nevas interrupted. "You don't know that," Jongbloed replied. "But I know and the jury's going to know." Outside the courtroom, Diane Polan, one of the nearly 70 criminal defense lawyers who filled the courtroom, claimed the reporting law applied only to child abuse and not child pornography. "We approached Peter on this and he said the government is equating child abuse to child pornography," she said. She further claimed the initial images seen by the church employee were only of naked boys and not of children participating in sexual acts. "Not all pictures of naked children are child pornography," she said. "Parents take pictures of their naked children." Contact: Michael P. Mayko mmayko@ctpost.com
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.