for Bigtrial.net
Lawyers for Msgr. William J. Lynn say the Philadelphia district attorney is resorting to hysteria, emotion and histrionics in his legal appeal to send their client back to jail.
District Attorney Seth Williams has asked the state Supreme Court to overturn a Dec. 26th opinion from a panel of three Superior Court judges that reversed Msgr, Lynn's prior conviction on one count of endangering the welfare of a child.
In its appeal to the state Supreme Court, the district attorney said the reversal by the Superior Court panel sent a "dismal message" to the survivors of sex abuse. Also, because of the overly broad language and "misapplication of law" in the Superior Court opinion, the district attorney warned that the state may not be able to protect future victims of child abuse.
Lynn's lawyers saw it differently.
"The Commonwealth willfully the distorts the Superior Court's decision, which "simply concluded" that the state's original child endangerment law did not apply to Lynn, as he was "neither a parent, guardian, nor other person supervising the welfare of a child," Thomas A. Bergstrom and Allison Khaskelis argue in their 27-page response to the D.A.'s petition that was filed today.
"In the absence of law and fact to support its position, the Commonwealth hopes to trick this Court into hearing its appeal on the basis of hysterics," Bergstrom and Khaskelis argue to the state Supreme Court. Lynn's lawyers also accuse the district attorney of employing "histrionics" and "an irrational appeal to emotion."
Lynn, the Archdiocese of Philadelphia's former secretary for clergy, was convicted on June 22, 2012 by a jury of one count of endangering the welfare of a child. He was the first Catholic administrator in the country to be sent to jail for failing to control an abusive priest. Lynn had served 18 months of a 3 to 6 year sentence when he was set free on bail after the Superior Court reversed his conviction.
In their response to the D.A.s appeal to the state Supreme Court, Lynn's lawyers delve into the factual history of the case. It began in 1992 when a 29-year old man wrote the secretary for clergy to say he had been molested as a teenager back in the late 1970s by Father Edward V. Avery.
Avery was a "close personal friend" of the victim and his family for many years, Lynn's lawyer say. "It was a relationship that began when Avery was a priest in the parish" where the victim's family belonged.
When the victim was 15, after a night in a bar, the priest groped the victim while the two shared a bed. At the time, the teenager was "Avery's only known victim," Lynn's lawyer wrote.
When Lynn confronted Avery about the accusation, he denied it. Lynn recommended to Cardinal Anthony J. Bevilacqua that Avery undergo an assessment and inpatient treatment at St. John Vianney, the archdiocese's own psychiatric hospital. Avery was hospitalized for more than eight months. His diagnosis was alcoholism. He was not diagnosed with any sexual disorder. The archdiocese's doctors pronounced Avery "fit to return to ministry."
Avery's therapists did recommend that he return to a ministry with "no direct contact with children." Bevilacqua assigned Avery as chaplain at Nazareth Hospital, with a residency at St. Jerome's parish in Northeast Philadelphia, which had "a large rectory where several other priests could observe Avery."
Lynn put together an "aftercare integration team" that included Father Graham, pastor of St. Jerome's. Lynn told Father Graham "the details of Avery's past and the nature of Avery's treatment, asking Father Graham to be vigilant of Avery," Lynn's lawyers wrote.
From the time Avery was discharged in 1993 until 1998, Avery was receiving outpatient treatment at St. John Vianney. Avery's therapists regularly wrote to Lynn, saying that Avery was "progressing well in therapy." Avery attended Alcoholics Anonymous meetings for two years. He also received a Ph.D. in divinity.
Avery was removed from ministry as a result of "a new more rigorous archdiocesan policy," Lynn's lawyers wrote. Msgr. Lynn had "no indication whatsoever that Avery had contact with children in his ministerial duties." Father Graham had complained that Avery was "unwilling to help out at the parish and had fewer duties than other priests living at St. Jerome's rectory," Lynn's lawyers wrote. Avery confined himself to his chaplain duties.
In 2002, after the archdiocese adopted a "zero-tolerance" policy with regards to sex abuse, Lynn asked Avery to undergo a second psychological assessment. This time, Avery's therapists noted a "history of alcohol abuse," but said the priest "did not present as an individual with a sexual disorder."
Father Graham told therapists that he "had never observed Avery around young people."
Avery was removed from ministry in 2003 and removed from the priesthood because of his molestation of the 15-year-old during the late 1970s.
In 2009, a victim a grand jury labeled "Billy Doe" came forward to charge that Avery had sexually abused him during the 1998-99 school year, when he was a 10-year-old altar boy.
Unlike the previous victim, Billy Doe "recounted a story of random abuse, by a priest whom neither he nor his parents had a relationship," Lynn's lawyers wrote. "In sum, [Lynn] did not suspect, and had many valid reasons not to suspect, that Avery was anything but rehabilitated. He certainly never foresaw that the tragic events leadeng up to [Billy Doe's] abuse would take place."
In the appeal to the state Supreme Court, the D.A. claimed that Lynn "was a high-ranking Archdiocesan official specifically responsible for protecting children from pedophile priests. Instead, he relocated them, as part of a general scheme of concealment, in a manner that put additional children at risk of being sexually molested."
The D.A. argued that "the Superior Court errs in holding that a church official who systematically reassigned pedophile priests in a manner that risked further sexual abuse of children did not endanger the welfare of children."
In their response, Lynn's lawyers cry foul.
"This is a distortion of the holding at best and at worst, a complete fabrication that insults the intelligence and integrity of the Superior Court," Lynn's lawyers argue.
The original law that Lynn was convicted under says, "A parent, guardian or other person supervising the welfare of a child under 18 years of age commits a misdemeanor of the second degree if he knowingly endangers the welfare of a child by violating a duty of care, protection or support."
The Superior Court opinion reversing Lynn's conviction held that the original child endangerment law "did not apply to him [Lynn] as he was neither a parent, guardian, nor other person supervising the welfare of a child," Lynn's lawyers wrote. In addition, the Superior Court held that the district attorney did not meet its burden in proving that Lynn was an accomplice in Avery's crime of endangering the welfare of child [EWOC].
"Contrary to what the Comomnwealth would lead this Court to believe, [Lynn] was never charged with or convicted of reassigning pedophile priests," Lynn's lawyers wrote. He was charged with endangering the welfare of a child, and conspiracy to endanger the welfare of a child.
Avery was never diagnosed as a peodplhie and was not reassigned "as part of a general scheme of concealment," Lynn's lawyers argue.
The jury acquitted Lynn of one conspiracy to commit EWOC count, and the trial judge dismissed another conspiracy to commit EWOC count.
Lynn's lawyers took a dim view of the D.A.'s argument that the Superior Court opinion reversing Lynn's conviction will prevent the state from protecting future victims of abuse.
"The Commonwealth's accounts of the perils of the precedent set by the Superior Court's decision is baseless and illogical," Lynn's lawyers write. "There is no need for this Court to consider this position. In the aftermath of the 2007 amendment to the EWOC statute, which includes a new category of potential defendants, there will be few, if any prosecutions like this case, based on the old version of the statute. The Court's precious resources would be wasted on considering a case with no prospective value."
In 2007, the state amended the EWOC law to include supervisors such as Lynn.
"It is, frankly, astonishing, that the Commonwealth showed a modicum of restraint and did not take the small step to accuse a panel of thoughtful and distinguished jurists of facilitating EWOC themselves," Lynn's lawyers write.
The district attorney's warning that the amended statute "will not protect children has absolutely no grounding in the words of the Superior Court opinion or the language of the new statute," Lynn's lawyers wrote. "It is nothing but an irrational appeal to emotion that should be ignored."
"In the absence of law and fact to support its position, the Commonwealth hopes to trick this Court into hearing its appeal on the basis of hysterics," Bergstrom and Khaskelis argue to the state Supreme Court. Lynn's lawyers also accuse the district attorney of employing "histrionics" and "an irrational appeal to emotion."
Lynn, the Archdiocese of Philadelphia's former secretary for clergy, was convicted on June 22, 2012 by a jury of one count of endangering the welfare of a child. He was the first Catholic administrator in the country to be sent to jail for failing to control an abusive priest. Lynn had served 18 months of a 3 to 6 year sentence when he was set free on bail after the Superior Court reversed his conviction.
In their response to the D.A.s appeal to the state Supreme Court, Lynn's lawyers delve into the factual history of the case. It began in 1992 when a 29-year old man wrote the secretary for clergy to say he had been molested as a teenager back in the late 1970s by Father Edward V. Avery.
Avery was a "close personal friend" of the victim and his family for many years, Lynn's lawyer say. "It was a relationship that began when Avery was a priest in the parish" where the victim's family belonged.
When the victim was 15, after a night in a bar, the priest groped the victim while the two shared a bed. At the time, the teenager was "Avery's only known victim," Lynn's lawyer wrote.
When Lynn confronted Avery about the accusation, he denied it. Lynn recommended to Cardinal Anthony J. Bevilacqua that Avery undergo an assessment and inpatient treatment at St. John Vianney, the archdiocese's own psychiatric hospital. Avery was hospitalized for more than eight months. His diagnosis was alcoholism. He was not diagnosed with any sexual disorder. The archdiocese's doctors pronounced Avery "fit to return to ministry."
Avery's therapists did recommend that he return to a ministry with "no direct contact with children." Bevilacqua assigned Avery as chaplain at Nazareth Hospital, with a residency at St. Jerome's parish in Northeast Philadelphia, which had "a large rectory where several other priests could observe Avery."
Lynn put together an "aftercare integration team" that included Father Graham, pastor of St. Jerome's. Lynn told Father Graham "the details of Avery's past and the nature of Avery's treatment, asking Father Graham to be vigilant of Avery," Lynn's lawyers wrote.
From the time Avery was discharged in 1993 until 1998, Avery was receiving outpatient treatment at St. John Vianney. Avery's therapists regularly wrote to Lynn, saying that Avery was "progressing well in therapy." Avery attended Alcoholics Anonymous meetings for two years. He also received a Ph.D. in divinity.
Avery was removed from ministry as a result of "a new more rigorous archdiocesan policy," Lynn's lawyers wrote. Msgr. Lynn had "no indication whatsoever that Avery had contact with children in his ministerial duties." Father Graham had complained that Avery was "unwilling to help out at the parish and had fewer duties than other priests living at St. Jerome's rectory," Lynn's lawyers wrote. Avery confined himself to his chaplain duties.
In 2002, after the archdiocese adopted a "zero-tolerance" policy with regards to sex abuse, Lynn asked Avery to undergo a second psychological assessment. This time, Avery's therapists noted a "history of alcohol abuse," but said the priest "did not present as an individual with a sexual disorder."
Father Graham told therapists that he "had never observed Avery around young people."
Avery was removed from ministry in 2003 and removed from the priesthood because of his molestation of the 15-year-old during the late 1970s.
In 2009, a victim a grand jury labeled "Billy Doe" came forward to charge that Avery had sexually abused him during the 1998-99 school year, when he was a 10-year-old altar boy.
Unlike the previous victim, Billy Doe "recounted a story of random abuse, by a priest whom neither he nor his parents had a relationship," Lynn's lawyers wrote. "In sum, [Lynn] did not suspect, and had many valid reasons not to suspect, that Avery was anything but rehabilitated. He certainly never foresaw that the tragic events leadeng up to [Billy Doe's] abuse would take place."
In the appeal to the state Supreme Court, the D.A. claimed that Lynn "was a high-ranking Archdiocesan official specifically responsible for protecting children from pedophile priests. Instead, he relocated them, as part of a general scheme of concealment, in a manner that put additional children at risk of being sexually molested."
The D.A. argued that "the Superior Court errs in holding that a church official who systematically reassigned pedophile priests in a manner that risked further sexual abuse of children did not endanger the welfare of children."
"This is a distortion of the holding at best and at worst, a complete fabrication that insults the intelligence and integrity of the Superior Court," Lynn's lawyers argue.
The original law that Lynn was convicted under says, "A parent, guardian or other person supervising the welfare of a child under 18 years of age commits a misdemeanor of the second degree if he knowingly endangers the welfare of a child by violating a duty of care, protection or support."
The Superior Court opinion reversing Lynn's conviction held that the original child endangerment law "did not apply to him [Lynn] as he was neither a parent, guardian, nor other person supervising the welfare of a child," Lynn's lawyers wrote. In addition, the Superior Court held that the district attorney did not meet its burden in proving that Lynn was an accomplice in Avery's crime of endangering the welfare of child [EWOC].
"Contrary to what the Comomnwealth would lead this Court to believe, [Lynn] was never charged with or convicted of reassigning pedophile priests," Lynn's lawyers wrote. He was charged with endangering the welfare of a child, and conspiracy to endanger the welfare of a child.
Avery was never diagnosed as a peodplhie and was not reassigned "as part of a general scheme of concealment," Lynn's lawyers argue.
The jury acquitted Lynn of one conspiracy to commit EWOC count, and the trial judge dismissed another conspiracy to commit EWOC count.
Lynn's lawyers took a dim view of the D.A.'s argument that the Superior Court opinion reversing Lynn's conviction will prevent the state from protecting future victims of abuse.
"The Commonwealth's accounts of the perils of the precedent set by the Superior Court's decision is baseless and illogical," Lynn's lawyers write. "There is no need for this Court to consider this position. In the aftermath of the 2007 amendment to the EWOC statute, which includes a new category of potential defendants, there will be few, if any prosecutions like this case, based on the old version of the statute. The Court's precious resources would be wasted on considering a case with no prospective value."
In 2007, the state amended the EWOC law to include supervisors such as Lynn.
"It is, frankly, astonishing, that the Commonwealth showed a modicum of restraint and did not take the small step to accuse a panel of thoughtful and distinguished jurists of facilitating EWOC themselves," Lynn's lawyers write.
The district attorney's warning that the amended statute "will not protect children has absolutely no grounding in the words of the Superior Court opinion or the language of the new statute," Lynn's lawyers wrote. "It is nothing but an irrational appeal to emotion that should be ignored."