BishopAccountability.org
	Diocese Case Ends in Mistrial By Sam Hemingway Burlington Free Press [Vermont] June 26, 2007 http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200770626001 Judge Ben Joseph declared a mistrial Monday in the lawsuit brought by James Turner, a Virginia man who claimed the state's Roman Catholic diocese was to blame for his 1977 molestation at the hands of the Rev. Alfred Willis. "We're back to the very beginning and I'm sorry for all that's gone on here," Joseph told a stunned courtroom shortly before 2 p.m. Moments after Joseph's announcement, a dejected Turner left the courtroom and slipped into a small room nearby. He then stood in a corner, hands on his hips and head faced downward before being joined by his wife, who embraced him. "This is just another example of them continuing to victimize me," he told reporters as he departed the courthouse minutes later. "For however long it takes, we'll be back to court. I have to do this for me." Bishop Salvatore Matano, who had attended every day of the trial, said he was disappointed with the mistrial decision. "We came here seeking justice from the court," he said. "I deeply regret the hurt being felt by anyone. ... I pray that this will come to a reasonable conclusion." Turner's lawyers requested the mistrial following a morning of testimony during which diocesan attorney David Cleary asked Turner a series of probing questions about the relationship between Willis and Turner's brother, the Rev. Bernard Turner. Cleary several times asked Turner why Turner's psychologist had indicated in therapy session notes that Turner held his brother responsible for the abuse that had allegedly occurred. The psychologist's notes had been entered into evidence at the trial. Turner's lawyers objected to a number of Cleary's questions as they were being asked. In some cases, Joseph sustained, or agreed with, the objections. In others, he overruled the objections and allowed Cleary to proceed with his inquiry. Turner's attorney, Jerome O'Neill, speaking outside the courtroom after the mistrial was announced, said the questions by Cleary violated a pre-trial order by Joseph that prohibited the asking of such questions. "They were questions directed at humiliating James Turner and trying to prevent victims from coming forward," O'Neill said. "Anything this diocese says about caring for the victims is baloney." According to the June 14 pre-trial order, an alleged homosexual relationship between Willis and Bernard Turner was deemed irrelevant to the case and questions about it were ruled not permissible. Willis settled with Turner last year; the diocese was the sole defendant in the case that ended Monday. O'Neill said Turner's case was fatally damaged when, by trying to abide by the court order and answering Cleary's questions, Turner ended up looking evasive while responding to them. During the questioning, Turner often answered "I don't recall" or "I don't know." "This wasn't something we wanted to do but we felt we had no option because the opportunity for a fair trial had been deprived," O'Neill said of the decision to ask for a mistrial. Cleary, in separate remarks to reporters, said Joseph's decision to grant the mistrial motion was "unfounded, unfair and precipitous" but also defended the judge's morning rulings that permitted him to ask the questions he did. "The questions I asked were handled by the judge who overruled objections raised by the plaintiff," Cleary said. "It was clear from the psychological records that Mr. Turner's view of the case was that he blamed his brother for the abuse. That came out, I thought, loud and clear." Cleary said he was "extremely disappointed" by Joseph's decision to call off the trial midway through its fourth day, but agreed that he was not unhappy that a judge other than Joseph will likely hear the case if it comes up for trial again. "Certainly we are in hopes that we will finally get a fair playing field where we can present all of the evidentiary issues which we've had for some period of time," Cleary said. The diocese, believing Joseph had shown bias against the church in his rulings, twice tried without success to have Joseph removed from presiding over a previous priest-child molestation case. Turner had remained composed during his morning testimony, describing how he met Willis through his brother when his brother and Willis were attending seminary school together. He said the molestation occurred at a Latham, N.Y., motel room after a ceremony connected with his brother's pending ordination as a priest. "I was awakened by Father Willis performing oral sex on me," Turner said. Turner said he told Willis to stop and tried to push him away, but was "sexually naive" and didn't know what to else to do. "I felt so dirty," he said. Three months later, Willis attempted to molest him again at his family's home in Derby. This time, he rebuffed Willis. Turner said Willis at some point gave him a sweatshirt and a basketball. "I never wore it," he said of the sweatshirt. Asked about the basketball, he said "the next day, I popped it." Cleary said he will appeal Joseph's mistrial ruling to the Vermont Supreme Court, along with other recent rulings of Joseph in the case. O'Neill, however, scoffed at Cleary's comment, saying mistrial decisions can't be appealed J. Kinvin Wroth, a professor and former dean of the Vermont Law School, said in an interview that only in special situations can a mistrial ruling be appealed and that Joseph, as the trial judge, would have to permit such an appeal to go forward in any case. Contact: Sam Hemingway at 660-1850 or e-mail at shemingway@bfp.burlingtonfreepress.com
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.