|
Priest sex abuse cases put Pennsylvania grand jury rules to test
By Tim Darragh
Morning Call
August 03, 2018
http://www.mcall.com/news/nationworld/pennsylvania/mc-nws-grand-jury-law-catholic-sex-abuse-20180731-story.html
 |
Harrisburg Diocese Bishop Ronald Gainer discusses unveiling the names of 71 clerics who allegedly abused children. The diocese also is removing prior bishops' names from buildings because they failed to respond adequately to reports of abuse.
Photo by Mark Scolforo |
The long-awaited grand jury report on sex abuse of children by priests in six Catholic dioceses in Pennsylvania is testing a balance of rights and raising questions about the fairness of secretive grand juries.
On the one hand, sex abuse victims say the release of the report naming more than 300 “predator” priests is a key step in healing and gaining justice.
On the other, people named in the report but not charged with crimes say in court records that the grand jury process failed to give them a fair opportunity to rebut the allegations against them. The two-year investigation covered the dioceses of Allentown, Erie, Greensburg, Harrisburg, Pittsburgh and Scranton, and ended in April.
While sex abuse victims are natural targets for sympathy, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in a July 27 opinion made it clear the alleged abusers’ reputations also demand respect as guaranteed by the state constitution.
“The right of citizens to security in their reputations is not some lesser-order precept,” Chief Justice Thomas G. Saylor wrote in the opinion. “Rather, in Pennsylvania it is a fundamental constitutional entitlement.”
The debate is coming at an opportune time. The Supreme Court last year convened a task force to review the grand jury process and make recommendations for reforms. What results could fundamentally change the way grand juries operate in Pennsylvania. According to the court’s administration, the task force was asked to assess the scope and nature of grand jury secrecy, as well as the roles of the supervising judge and the commonwealth’s attorney — issues that have arisen in the current grand jury.
Court spokeswoman Stacey Witalec declined to discuss the task force’s work or when it may issue its findings.
The question of the rights of those named but not charged did not come up publicly during previous grand jury investigations into the Altoona-Johnstown Diocese or the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, said Richard Long, executive director of the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association. More than 100 abusive priests were named in those reports.
Lynne Abraham, the former Philadelphia district attorney who spearheaded the investigation in 2005 that exposed widespread sexual abuse in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, said priests named in that report largely did not take advantage of the opportunity to appear before the grand jury. Objections that priests didn’t have an opportunity to speak to the grand jury may be overblown, she said, because they likely wouldn’t have wanted to be subjected to cross-examination.
“You really want the chance to appear before a grand jury and be questioned by a prosecutor?” Abraham asked. “I don’t think so.”
The Supreme Court ordered the release of the current report, with the names of the objecting petitioners blacked out, on Wednesday if there are no further objections, or Aug. 14 at the latest. It also is scheduling oral arguments in Philadelphia next month to determine if the full report can be released while protecting individuals’ rights.
Lawyers for priests seeking to censor the report have seized on the state constitution’s guarantee of secure reputations. In one heavily redacted brief, Harrisburg attorney Christopher Carusone said publicizing his client’s name “is certain to permanently destroy” his reputation.
The Supreme Court is making the right legal call to ensure those priests named in the report receive their due process rights, retired state Chief Justice Ron Castille said. There should be no rush to publication, he added, because in many instances, the allegations are too old to permit criminal charges.
“There is no rush to judgment unless the attorney general wants to have a big splash in the press,” Castille said.
Attorney General Josh Shapiro has been a vocal proponent of disclosure, even writing Pope Francis for support. The Supreme Court, however, has tapped the brakes on the process, blocking the release of not just the report, but Shapiro’s brief arguing for its release — all over concern for reputations.
In a turn of events, the dioceses, which for years fought disclosure of abusers and at times insisted on confidentiality agreements when settling with victims, now are putting victims first. The Erie and Harrisburg dioceses have made public the names of accused priests and the Allentown Diocese says it will publicize the names of the accused when the redacted report is released.
Because the grand jury process is secret, it is not known publicly who is objecting to being named in the report. Allentown Bishop Alfred A. Schlert has called for the report’s release, saying the diocese is not among the petitioners.
Crux of the issue
It’s one thing when an investigating grand jury criticizes institutions for poor performance or inefficiency, said Peter Goldberger, a lawyer in Ardmore, Montgomery County. It is another, more serious concern when a grand jury issues findings that suggest criminal behavior, and the Supreme Court took note of that in its opinion, he said.
The seven justices agreed that the lower level of proof used by the grand jury, a “preponderance” of evidence, was not satisfactory when the grand jury leveled possible criminal accusations, Goldberger said. Indeed, Saylor wrote that the lack of a provision in the law giving people the right to a hearing during the grand jury process could render the law “unconstitutional.”
Under preponderance of evidence, a prosecutor has to show that evidence of a crime likely occurred.
According to Goldberger, the task force and state legislators may want to consider a higher level of proof, “clear and convincing evidence,” for the grand jury law. Under those terms, a prosecutor would need to show a grand jury evidence of a possible crime that is substantially more likely than not to be true.
The Pennsylvania Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers last week issued a legal challenge to the whole report, saying reports that raise “purely criminal accusations” should require the highest standard of proof, beyond a reasonable doubt.
Northampton County District Attorney John Morganelli, who has lobbied for the release of the grand jury report and uses county grand juries, said concerns about damaging reputations are valid. The Legislature in 1994 voted to disband the Pennsylvania Crime Commission, which also issued public reports against alleged organized crime members without their input, over similar concerns, he said.
He suggested releasing the redacted report and naming those responsible for covering up priests’ sexual misconduct.
Whatever is done with the report, Morganelli and Abraham said the Legislature should keep grand juries as an investigative option.
Tweaking the law is fine, “as long as they don’t make it impossible for an investigative grand jury to investigate corrupt people,” Abraham said.
While the Supreme Court is considering priests’ reputations, it also should remember the reputations of sex abuse victims, said state Rep. Mark Rozzi, D-Berks.
No one worries about the reputations of victims whose lives change through substance abuse, anger issues and other consequences of being abused as a child, said Rozzi, who says he was molested by an Allentown Diocese priest when he was an adolescent. The abuse he endured harmed his reputation — and his potential career — at home and in the community, he said.
As a high-schooler, he said, the abuse caused him to lash out at his mother and use marijuana to sleep without nightmares. Rozzi had such anxiety about using public bathrooms that he skipped a baseball tryout with the Cleveland Indians, leading to community whispers, he said. After he disclosed his abuse, Rozzi added, some family members distanced themselves from him.
“For sure it ruined my reputation,” he said.
Ed Ciarimboli, a Kingston, Luzerne County, lawyer who is representing several people claiming they were molested by priests, lamented the legal roadblocks that have stopped the report’s release.
“We’ve been waiting for this report in order to move forward in a meaningful way,” he said. “The stonewalling from the Catholic church … has been unbelievable.”
Victims also should see church officials who covered up abuse held accountable, he said. “That can’t happen until there’s full transparency.”
Contact: tdarragh@mcall.com
|