BishopAccountability.org

Sexual abuse is the story, but grand jury process is the issue before Pa. Supreme Court

By Charles Thompson
PennLive
July 23, 2018

https://www.pennlive.com/news/2018/07/sexual_abuse_is_the_story_but.html

A grand jury report on the Roman Catholic church's handling of child sex abuse reports has been delayed because of a pitched legal battle over grand jury process and the rights of those who have been named.

Many Pennsylvanians are waiting anxiously to see what's in the 40th Statewide Investigating Grand Jury's report on the Roman Catholic church's handling of past abuse allegations against its priests.

Prosecutors hinted at a release in late June.

And then, court battles intervened.

But if you think this latest delay is a precursor to killing the report, however, think again.

Lawyers on all sides privately seem to expect the document will come out. Church officials have been openly preparing their latter-day congregants for it.

The fight now is down to the intersection of a pretty limited battle from a handful of people trying to protect their reputations from what they claim are investigative errors, and an abiding interest by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in the state's sometimes-controversial grand jury process.

The question is whether subjects facing criticisms in the report by name - but not criminally charged - should have a chance to make a de facto defense case before said report goes public.

That, in itself, would flip the script in a process break where prosecutors have traditionally held all the cards: From deciding, with court approval, what cases to investigate, what witnesses to call and what evidence to present, and then leading those witnesses through testimony with no opportunity for defense cross-examination.

Defense attorneys and prosecutors generally agree that's one thing in a criminal investigation.

Because there, if a grand jury's presentment leads to charges, any defendant has well-defined and constitutionally protected right to confront their accusers at a trial.

The situation, some believe, is far murkier with grand jury reports.

There, people who will never be charged for reasons ranging from statute of limitations rules to the death of witnesses can be tagged with allegations or harsh criticism with little formal chance to rebut them.

It's especially critical in a case like this where the allegations pertain to child sexual abuse, the petitioners have argued.

That's why lawyers in the present case are pressing for a chance for their clients to be permitted to disprove allegations against them before the report is publicly released.

Without it, the petitioners' attorneys argued in their briefs, the state will be permitted to conduct "what amounts to a drive-by shooting of those without blame or guilt."

It's not an entirely new issue.

Sen. Stewart Greenleaf, R-Montgomery County and chair of the state Senate's Judiciary Committee, proposed a bill this session that would bar grand jury reports from making "allegations or assessments" of people who aren't indicted.

Action was deferred, a Greenleaf staffer said this spring, because prosecutors thought it was too one-sided. They asked Greenleaf to let a Supreme Court task force on grand jury issues finish its work first.

The Supreme Court could beat both lawmakers and its task force to the punch in the present case. The possibility of major change to the grand jury report tool has some prosecutors and victims' advocates worried.

State Rep. Mark Rozzi, a Berks County Democrat who has said he himself was raped by a priest as a 13-year-old, expressed outrage Friday at what he considers the hypocrisy in the continuing court battle.

"If they want due process, that's fine: give the victims their day in court and the predators and those who are in charge of them can go to town protecting their reputations," Rozzi said in a statment released by his office. 

"There are really only two ways that victims' voices can be heard and get to the truth: through the court room or grand jury investigations.

"For decades, the bishops have fought statutes of limitation reform against the former and are now battling the disclosure of this grand jury investigation... it must stop."

But attorneys for the petitioners argue that Pennsylvania is an outlier in what it permits in non-indicting reports.

Some states, like New York, guarantee anyone named in a grand jury investigative report the chance to personally appear before the same grand jury, to provide their own side of the story.

And reports that simply result in recommendations of policy or legislative changes are not supposed to be critical of any identifiable person.

What a Pennsylvania grand jury judge can permit now, in his or her discretion, is the chance for a report's subjects to file a written response that is released concurrently with the grand jury's findings.

We know the supervising judge in this case, Norman Krumenacker III of Cambria County, has granted numerous individuals that right in this case.

But attorneys for the petitioners, who to date are still unnamed, argue even that written response is not a sufficient to protect the specific reputational rights granted to individuals by the Pennsylvania Constitution.

Attorneys for Attorney General Josh Shapiro have filed a response brief with the state court, but it remained under seal late Friday afternoon. 

Advocates for prosecutors note they aren't operating without any guideposts here.

Greg Rowe, director of legislation and policy for the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association, noted prosecutors can face professional sanctions if they sign off on assertions that aren't grounded in fact.

Rowe said whatever emerges out of the either the pending Supreme Court review or the separate grand jury task force, prosecutors are hopeful the report function is preserved.

It's too important a function in bringing to light problems with state policy or institutional behavior.

And, he added, hearing individuals' stories as part of the process can be an important part of both bringer greater understanding to why certain issues play out as they do, and effectuating positive change.

Kristen Houser of the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape, agreed.

She and others hope this particular report will push lawmakers to broaden Pennsylvania's current deadlines for bringing criminal and civil actions in sexual abuse cases.

Houser noted that, assuming prosecutors have done their due diligence, the people who have been identified in this report have for years avoided any public accountability for their actions, and escaped the ignominy of having criminal records.

"While you may have a right to protect your reputation, it seems that the first line of defense should be your own actions," Houser said. "This is a crime for which very few people take responsibility. The most common response is, 'I didn't do these things' whether they've been convicted or not.

"But there are real people who are responsible for sexually abusing one in four girls and one in six boys before they turn 18."

Contact: cthompson@pennlive.com




.


Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.